opening the margins:

nurturing discursive spaces in fieldwork, writing and teaching

Richie Howitt

Human Geography, Macquarie University

Paper presented to Institute of Australian Geographers Conference, University of Sydney

September 28-October 1, 1999

Return to Richie Howitt's publications page

Return to Richie Howitt's home page

In preparation for a major research project a group researchers and project managers in the client organisations has spent a day and a half discussing the terms of reference. The in-house anthropologist turns to me and says, "I understand all that, but why do we need a geographer? What do you add to the team?" Around the table there is an audible drawing in of breath. How would I respond to a question which some around the table thought was pretty rude? For me, however, it seemed a reasonable question -- a probing for concrete explanation of what my disciplinary strengths offered to a difficult practical research project.

During an interview by a university research panel for postgraduate research funds, an eminent research psychologist begins questioning a human geography PhD about their research project and proposed fieldwork. "Can you just explain to me what the difference between human geography and anthropology is?" The student's supervisor intervenes to suggest that this is an inappropriate forum to raise such a question.

landscape, boundary and identity

Anthropology and human geography somehow simultaneously sit together and apart in the intellectual division of labour. Terms such as landscape,boundary, identity, culture, place, territory and power are in common use in both disciplines, and in undergraduate programs we often share many students. In indigenous issues we often work side-by-side in the field in interdisciplinary teams, and we often peer review each other's research proposals and publications. Institutionally, we sit on common committees, examine each otherís student theses, and share curriculum development tasks. Yet, at a conceptual and theoretical level, there is surprisingly little dialogue between our disciplines.

Internationally, there has been acknowledgement of mutual nourishment over a long time. In the late-1970s, Jackson (1980) drew on the ideas and methods of social anthropology in reshaping cultural geography (Cosgrove and Jackson 1987:95). In the early-1990s, Rodman (1992) drew on the work of geographers to assert the importance of place and multilocality as a perspective in current anthropology. George Marcus drew on the work of David Harvey and Ed Soja in developing his multi-sited ethonography (1995), Strang's (1997) outstanding work weaves the two disciplines together. And in recent discussion of globalisation, landscape and methodology, anthropology (eg Hirsch & O'Hanlon1995; Feld & Basso 1996; Munn 1996; Gupta & Ferguson 1997; Williams 1998) has turned attention to many of the core themes of cultural geography.

For some Australian anthropologists, geography was brought into some disrepute following sustained criticism of some work on boundaries and frontiers (eg Davis & Prescott 1992) and disagreement with theoretical underpinnings of that work (eg Sack 1986). Suttonís powerful critique of Davis & Prescott's book (Sutton 1995) brought together critical reviews by anthropologists and geographers. Dismissal of Davis' arguments in court hearings over Coronation Hill (Merlan 1991) also contributed to the low standing of geography in some anthropologistsí eyes. But for many anthropologists the conceptual failure of this work seems to have discredited political geography and perhaps even geography as a whole.

Within geography, where there is a long tradition of interaction with cognate disciplines (see eg the contributions by anthropologists and others in Wagner & Mikesell 1962), there is a sense that much of the discipline's best contributions are overlooked in favour of less sophisticated but trendier work from cultural studies, postmodern ethnography and postcolonial studies. There is, for example, little reference to the theoretical work on space and place by geographical theorists such as Doreen Massey (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995), Linda McDowell (1991, 1993, 1994), Peter Taylor (1993, 1994), Andrew Sayer (1985), John Agnew (1993), Peter Jackson (1989) and many others. Indeed, citations are often limited to Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity and Sojaís Postmodern Geographies, with little reference to Harvey's wider corpus of work on space, time, place and environment (eg 1990, 1993, 1996) or Soja's work on spatial dialectics (eg 1980, also Soja & Hooper 1993).

So, what is happening at the margins of these two disciplines? How much do anthropologists and geographers actually read and understand of each other? And how does the work of a geographer differ from that of an anthropologist?

In this paper, I will argue that geographers need to be clear about what our disciplinary traditions and its conceptual foundations do bring to important debates of theory, method and practice to ensure that the spatialisation of other social sciences does not marginalise geographers.

fieldwork

Both disciplines are often characterised as field-based (eg Perry 1989; Professional Geographer 1994; Gupta and Ferguson 1997a). Both have proudly emphasised the grounded, empirical basis of the knowledge there research produces, and theoretical work is often devalued in more traditional domains of the discipline.

In the field, anthropologists are often more specifically focussed on documenting interpreting specific social relations (kinship, land tenure, social control), while geographers attend to regional, environmental, institutional or inter-cultural relations. The distinction, however, is neither consistent nor clear cut. There is considerable overlap and in real world applied research (eg social impact studies, regional planning, land claims etc) social scientists from several fields might play similar roles in different circumstances.

For my own part, where my work often involves analysis of social, political, economic and institutional arrangements across cultures and at several scales, I often rely on local ethnographic work by cultural anthropologists as a way of framing research questions, field strategies and implementation. The work often requires preparation of interpretative materials for delivery to local Aboriginal communities in concert with anthropologists and interpreters.

My experience is that anthropologists are sometimes surprised at the responsiveness of such audiences to multi-scale analysis. Where this is the case, the relevance of questions that I raise about connections between places, raise questions and a basis for dialogue with anthropologist colleagues.

As I seek understanding from them of the detailed social fabric of the groups involved in various projects, they probe the dynamics of the economic landscape and the nature of scale politics.

Coming from different traditions, we sometimes find we have different approaches to evidence. From field anthropologists schooled in preparing evidence for land claim hearings, I have learned the value of documenting field research on the basis that my field notes might become legal evidence. I have learned also to interrogate evidence differently. What might we glean from Council minutes, from local newspapers, from old mission or welfare records? What lies behind peopleís choices of words, emphasis and image in interviews? What do conflicts reveal about relationships marginal to those directly under investigation?

Fieldwork in many projects sometimes places colleagues into situations where there is prolonged focus on complex questions in difficult circumstances. Around bars, campfires and meal tables, there are many opportunities to debate conceptual implications of new writing; to introduce and be introduced to new material, ideas and perspectives. Around the margins of our fieldwork there is room for debate, argument, exploration and development. Where jointly written reports are involved, there is also room to explore different approaches to interpretation and explanation.

Where this involves students and research assistants, there opportunities to develop a sense of disciplinary foundations for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work arise that are impossible to reproduce in classrooms. The transformation of information into knowledge, understanding and a basis for action that occurs in such circumstances is a seductive experience to witness and contribute to.

writing

The value of such opportunities often depends on oneís professional literacy within and beyond each disciplinary literature. The postmodernist demystification of the writer makes it easier to see the text as a basis for dialogue rather than a sacred object to be rejected or embraced without alteration or engagement. The margins of texts, consequently, have become an arena for dialogue - particularly in jointly-written reports where drafts are debated, work-shopped, revised and expanded in fascinating ways.

I find myself constantly involved in marginal discussions with colleagues (and students), picking up issues of wider importance from obscure case material; raising issues of hidden epistemological baggage in the subtext of the structure or signposting of papers. For example, in reviewing Marcusí paper on multi-site ethnography, I found his categorisation of methods for constructing such studies (involving following either people, objects, metaphors, stories or conflicts) all disturbingly linear and centred. Hidden within this categorisation is a scale politics that reinvents a linear narrative akin to developmentalism, leaving little room for the awkward juxtapositions of time and place that are so widely experienced in contemporary life. In reading Bhabaís Location of Culture (1994), I likewise found myself drawn to the margins, to link abstract discourse to the politicised context of particular empirical circumstances. My marginalia have drawn me to debate over and over the relative merits of difference and diversity as analytical tools.

In such textual margins, I have seen important concepts blossom (and less robust ones fall). Simply asking "Have you read Ö ?í" or posing an alternative interpretation in the margins of a draft paper might prompt new directions in research, in organisational responses, in representations of complex issues.

In peer review of journal articles and research grants, the stakes around such marginalia are high, and the discursive opportunities drastically curtailed.

In Indigenous Studies, there is a high level of interdisciplinarity. Colleagues across disciplines might be well-placed to review specific field proposals because of their own familiarity with a field area. The problems arise when our professional literacy in other disciplines is limited. How might an economist interpret an economic geographerís proposal to consider revenue flows in a remote community? And what about an economic anthropologist? In my own experience, I faced severe censure from an historian influential in Aboriginal Studies in a review of a paper for using discipline-specific terms such as ëgeographiesí, ëspaceí and ëgeographical scaleí. Having been taken to task by this eminent person, I was told to read his own piece on a related topic where the words ëhistoryí, ëhistoriographyí and related terms were liberally used for a non-specialist audience.

I have reviewed economistsí proposals where theyíve advocated poorly developed field proposals because a candidate for a research position was a rarity in the discipline because they were interested in fieldwork! No mention was made of the extensive experience of political economists, economic geographers, and economic anthropologists (inter alia) as possible contributors or collaborators to this project.

teaching

The discursive space of teaching and supervision offers a further arena for cross-disciplinary discussion. In many undergraduate programs (Womenís Studies, Aboriginal Studies, Social Science, Cultural Studies etc) students will combine units in geography, anthropology and other areas. They bring to their tutorial discussions material from these other areas of study. How do we respond? Do we read it? Do we dismiss it because weíre trying to get the students focused on our own priorities?

In recent years, I have co-supervised an honours project with a colleague in anthropology. At times, as weíve discussed methods and conceptual issues, our student has sat quietly as weíve performed what felt like a high-wire act. Our dialogues have explored the cores and limits of our disciplinary homes. We have brought our student to her own questions and approaches, without imposing one or other discipline. And in the process she has created something quite compellingly original.

I have also been asked to supervise PhD projects for professional anthropologists on the basis of their reorientation, or my particular expertise. Such requests have confronted me with the particular question of what I have to offer from my own intellectual traditions of value to their trajectory. Again, this comes back to questions of professional literacy within and beyond geography.

In another teaching-related field, there are also responsibilities for curriculum development in programs where we might advocate training in both geography and anthropology and other disciplines such as sociology, politics, history, law and archaeology etc.

the nourishing terrain of interdisciplinarity

The social construction of knowledge relies on reaching across both explicit and hidden boundaries to achieve new understanding, new linkages and new interpretations. The common conceptual concerns of cultural geography and cultural anthropology (eg culture and place), do not imply a single epistemological position. The foundational concepts of geography (not its limits, of course), also include the concepts of space, environment and scale. In anthropology, the additional core concepts include identity, kinship and power. In each case, the compass of the other discipline may easily extend to these additional concepts, but the context is likely to be quite different.

This overlap, these common concerns and different orientations, offer an opportunity for development of discursive communities that might pursue specific issues and debates. These may develop quite specific forms in journals and conference (for example the recent Rethinking Economies conference in Canberra hosted by Kathie Gibson) or a less coherent dialogue across space and time such as the discussion of deep colonising and decolonisation that Debbie Rose (1996, 1997), Jane Jacobs (1996, Gelder & Jacobs 1998), Marcia Langton (1997, 1998) and I (eg Howitt 1998a) have engaged in over recent years. And our students will each respond to these communities in new and unexpected ways that promise further debate and dialogue into the future.

learning to speak, learning to listen

My concern is that geographers risk being more influenced than influential. Our intellectual responsibility is to produce ideas that matter. To do this, we need to build thoughtfully (not slavishly) on traditions and engage from positions of confidence in and understanding of these traditions. We need to learn to speak, and we need to learn to listen.

What does a geographer add to a research project on the impacts of a railway line through central Australia or discussion of native title and land use management in western Australia or Cape York? If geographers are unable to answer such questions, then we cannot expect our colleagues in other disciplines to do it for us. Nor should we expect them to abandon the intellectual terrain of globalisation, multi-site research, regional policy or human rights and sustainable communities because we see our contribution as central.

In the neo-liberal university, competition is increasingly entrenched as the modus operandi of intellectual labour - yet we cannot afford to mistake debate and argument for a fight to restrict student access to ideas, methods and approaches in other disciplines.

applied geography in policy processes

If we think geography matters (Massey 1984), and I passionately think it does both as a material relation and as an intellectual discipline, then we need to demonstrate, explain and refine that idea.

If we are unclear about why space, place, scale, environment and culture particularly matter in the work weíre doing, it is unlikely that others will see the value of geographersí contributions, or that geography as a material relation might matter.

I have argued elsewhere that one of our foundational concepts (geographical scale) remains quite chaotic and under-theorised (Howitt 1998b). Similarly, in the Australian indigenous context, there remains much work to be done on issues of locational disadvantage, globalisation, regional development policy, sustainable rural and remote communities and the integration of environmental, social and economic justice, each of which seems to me to be areas in which geographers might have much to offer.

discursive communities in social science

In conclusion, the margins of anthropology offer a terrain for nurturing discursive communities within the social sciences. Both cultural anthropology and cultural geography have important (and limited) contributions to make to social policy, academic debate and community practices. Neither has a monopoly hold on concepts such as space, scale, culture and identity. But if either discipline neglects such important concepts or trades characteristically careful and grounded empirical research for refined and rarified wordsmithing, there is no reason for others (in cultural studies, social philosophy etc etc) to hold off until we return to these matters.

The metaphor of coexistence that has been widely advocated as a framework for rethinking national identity in the post-Mabo era of Australian cultural politics can also provide a useful metaphor for the nationís intellectual landscapes. Mutual interest offers exciting opportunities for deeply challenging and profoundly important discursive communities to pursue just and sustainable outcomes to a range of current situations.

In the process of opening up such communities, we might found ourselves rethinking the margins in quite interesting and challenging ways.

References

Acciaioli, Greg; Beckett, Jeremy; Robinson, Kathryn; Tonkinson, Robert (1998): Anthropology. In: Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia (vol 1). (Ed: Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia) Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 63-75.

Agnew, John (1993): Representing Space: space, scale and culture in social science. In: place/culture/representation. (Eds: Duncan, James; Ley, David) Routledge, London and New York, 251-271.

Baker, Richard (1999): Land Is Life: from bush to town - the story of the Yanyuwa people. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Bhaba, Homi K (1994): The Location of Culture. Routledge, London and New York.

Cosgrove, Denis; Jackson, Peter (1987): New directions in cultural geography. Area 19(2), 19-101.

Davis, Stephen L; Prescott, JRV (1992): Aboriginal Frontiers and Boundaries in Australia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Feld, Steven; Basso, Keith H (Eds.) (1996): Senses of Place. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Gelder, Ken; Jacobs, Jane (1998): Uncanny Australia: sacredness and identity in a postcolonial nation. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Gupta, Akhil; Ferguson, James (1997a): Discipline and Practice: 'The Field' as site, method and location in anthropology. In: Anthropological Locations: boundaries and grounds of a field science. (Eds: Gupta, Akhil; Ferguson, James) University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1-46.

Gupta, Akhil; Ferguson, James (Eds.) (1997b): Anthropological Locations: boundaries and grounds of a field science. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Harvey, David (1990): Between space and time: reflections on the geographical imagination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 80(3), 418-434.

Harvey, David (1993): From space to place and back again: reflections on the condition of postmodernity. In: Mapping the futures: local cultures, global change. (Eds: Bird, Jon; Curtis, Barry; Putnam, Tim; Robertson, George; Tickner, Lisa) Routledge, London, 3-29.

Harvey, David (1996): Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwells, Oxford.

Hirsch, Eric; O'Hanlon, Micael (Eds.) (1995): The Anthropology of Landscape: perspectives on place and space. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Howitt, Richard (1998a): Recognition, reconciliation and respect: steps towards decolonisation? Australian Aboriginal Studies 1998/1, 28-34.

Howitt, Richard (1998b): Scale as relation: musical metaphors of geographical scale. Area 30(1), 49-58.

Jackson, Peter (1989): Maps of Meaning: an introduction to cultural geography. Unwin Hyman, London.

Jacobs, Jane (1996): Edge of Empire: postcolonialism and the city. Routledge, London and New York.

Kobayashi, Audrey (1989): A critique of dialectical landscape. In: Remaking Human Geography. (Eds: Kobayashi, Audrey; Mackenzie, S) Unwin Hyman, Boston, 164-183.

Langton, Marcia (1997): Pauline as the thin edge of the wedge. In: The retreat from tolerance: a snapshot of Australian society. (Ed: Adams,Philip) ABC Books, Sydney, 86-107.

Langton, Marcia (1998): Burning Questions: emerging environmental issues for indigenous peoples in northern Australia. Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, Northern Territory University, Darwin.

Massey, Doreen (1984): Introduction: Geography matters. In: Geography Matters! a reader. (Eds: Massey, Doreen; Allen, John) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1-11.

Massey, Doreen (1992): Politics and space/time. New Left Review 196, 65-84.

Massey, Doreen (1993): Politics and Space/Time. In: Place and the politics of identity. (Eds: Keith, Michael; Pile, Steve) Routledge, London and New York, 141-161.

Massey, Doreen (1993): Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In: Mapping the futures: local cultures, global change. (Eds: Bird, Jon; Curtis, Barry; Putnam, Tim; Robertson, George; Tickner, Lisa) Routledge, London, 59-69.

Massey, Doreen (1994): Double Articulation: A 'Place in the World'. In: Displacements- Cultural Identities in Question. (Ed: Bammer, A) Bloomington & Indianapolis, Indiana U.S, 110-119.

Massey, Doreen (1995): Thinking radical democracy spatially. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(3), 283-288.

McDowell, Linda (1991): The Baby and the Bath Water: diversity, deconstruction and feminist theory in geography. Geoforum 22(2), 123-133.

McDowell, Linda (1993): Space, place and gender relations: Part 1. Feminist empiricism and the geography of social relations. Progress in Human Geography 17(2), 157-179.

McDowell, Linda (1994): The transformation of cultural geography. In: Human Geography: Society, Space, and Social Science. (Eds: Gregory, Derek; Martin, Ron; Smith, Graham) University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 146-173.

Merlan, Francesca (1991): The limits of cultural constructionism: the case of Coronation Hill. Oceania 61, 341-352.

Munn, Nancy D (1996): Excluded spaces: the figure in the Australian Aboriginal landscape. Critical Inquiry 22, 446-465.

Perry, John (Ed.) (1989): Doing Fieldwork: eight personal accounts of social research. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Vic.

Professional Geographer (1994): Special Issue on 'Women in the Field'. Professional Geographer 46(1), .

Rodman, Margaret C (1992): Empowering Place: multilocality and multivocality. American Anthropologist 94(3), 640-656.

Rose, Deborah Bird (1997): Indigenous Ecology and an Ethic of Hope. paper presented to 'Environmental Justice: global ethics for the 21st Century', Melbourne, October 1-3, 1997.

Rose, Deborah Bird (1996): Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness. Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

Sack, Robert (1986): Human Territoriality - its theory and history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sack, Robert (1997): Homo Geographicus: a framework for action, awareness and moral concern. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Sayer, Andrew (1985): The difference that space makes. Chap. 4. In: Social Relations and Spatial Structures. (Ed: Gregory, D) Macmillan, London, 49-65.

Soja, Edward (1980): The Socio-Spatial Dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 70, 207-225.

Soja, Edward W (1989): Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso, London.

Soja, Edward; Hooper, Barbara (1993): The difference that space makes: some notes on the geographical margins of the new cultural politics. In: Place and the politics of identity. (Eds: Keith, Michael; Pile, Steve) Routledge, London and New York, 183-205.

Strang, Veronica (1997): Uncommon Ground: cultural landscapes and environmental values. Berg, London.

Sutton, Peter (1995): Country: Aboriginal boundaries and land ownership in Australia. Aboriginal History, Canberra.

Taylor, Peter J (1993): Political Geography: world-economy, nation-state and locality. Third ed. Longmans, Harlow.

Taylor, Peter J (1994): The state as a container: territoriality in the modern world-system. Progress in Human Geography 18(2), 151-162.

Wagner, Philip L; Mikesell, Marvin W (Eds.) (1962): Readings in Cultural Geography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Williams, Nancy M (1998): Territory, Land and Property: milestones and signposts. In: Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia (vol 2). (Ed: Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia) Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 83-113.

Return to Richie Howitt's publications page

Return to Richie Howitt's home page

 

Authorised by: Richie Howitt
Date: 1.6.1999
© Copyright 1999, Macquarie University