It was interesting to read about James Clifford’s perspective on developing methods, concepts, and processes in anthropology. Clifford’s main arguments and critiques focus on the idea that ethnographies have inherently become “partial truths”, which makes it impossible for an individual to understand the whole truth. Consequently, such “partial truths” make it difficult for ethnographers to gain a complete awareness of a group’s history and culture. Early evolutionists, such as Tylor and Morgan, asserted that anthropology maintains an objective view of cultures and societies. Clifford, on the other hand, argues that the field is inherently subjective. Clifford claims that contemporary ethnographies are subjective due to the fact that anthropologists use their knowledge and biases to evaluate a different culture; as a result, it is inevitable for an anthropologist to attain a complete understanding of a specific culture. As I reflected on this point, I questioned the approaches some anthropologists took to seek the truth. How authentic and “true” are the cultural accounts we read about today? How is a cultural narrative considered truthful to one’s culture?
Clifford’s ideas and examples present the importance of well-structured methodologies. After reading his works, I cannot help but wonder about the difficulty of perceiving another culture through an objective lens. Although contemporary ethnographies and anthropological tools and methods have certainly improved throughout the years, how far have we advanced from Clifford’s ideas of the “partial truth” and subjective ethnography? Have we achieved a complete objective lens in the field of anthropology, or do our subjective natures continue to interfere with achieving that goal? As we explore our placements in society, I am curious to see if we are able to achieve an almost balance between “objective” perspectives and “subjective” thoughts and opinions.