This article is transferred from | Academic artisan
▶️ Author: Xu Yiqiang
From Ethnography to Ethnography to Fieldwork: Anthropological Academic Debates Surrounding the Translation of "Ethnography".
1. Raising the Question: From the Misunderstanding of Ethnography 2. Basic Characteristics of Ethnography 3. Comparison of Different Translations of "Ethnography" 4. From "Ethnography" and "Ethnography" to "Field Chronicles"
Xu Yiqiang, male, Han nationality, from Yuexi, Anqing, Anhui Province, professor and doctoral supervisor of the Institute of Anthropology, Yunnan Normal University, director of the Chinese Anthropology Society. He used to be a distinguished associate researcher in the Department of Anthropology of Sun Yat-sen University, and a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Southeast Asian Ethnic Studies at McGill University in Canada. His research interests include the anthropology of religion, medical anthropology, shamanism and witchcraft. He has published more than 30 academic papers in well-known journals at home and abroad, such as "Ethnic Studies", "Folklore Studies", "Religious Studies", "Journal of Minzu University of China", "Ideological Front", "Studies on Chinese and Western Cultures", and "World Religions and Cultures". He presided over the completion of the National Social Science Foundation project "Medical Anthropological Research on the Belief and Treatment Practice of Hani Disease", and presided over the National Social Science Foundation project "Research on the Historical Context and Academic Paradigm of Anthropological Research in Yunnan". With the development of the times and the expansion of discipline research, the translation of the concept of "ethnography" has produced various misunderstandings, which cannot accurately express the new research status and the expanding research objects, and the continued use of the term "ethnography" will not be conducive to the popularization and expansion of the discipline of anthropology. "Ethnography" includes the basic characteristics of fieldwork, such as fieldwork and descriptiveness, and it is ideal to translate "Ethnography" as "fieldwork" based on fieldwork. From ethnography, ethnography to field history, it reflects the evolution of the discipline and the trend of the gradual extension of research objects, and is also a sign of the continuous renewal of anthropological research concepts. Anthropology; Ethnography； Ethnography; Tanoshi
Question: From the misunderstanding of ethnography
In recent years, there have been different opinions on the translation of the core word "Ethnography" in anthropology and ethnology. As we all know, anthropological and ethnological circles generally translate "Ethnography" conventionally as "ethnography", but for non-professionals and even the general public outside of the two, this term will cause ambiguity. For example, the following conversation scenario:
A (non-specialist, e.g. journalist): You often go to the countryside to investigate, what kind of research are you doing? B (Professional Anthropologist): I'm going to do ethnographic work and research. A: Oh, and since you're going to do an ethnographic survey, which ethnic minority are you studying? B: I went to a Han village in southern Fujian, not to any ethnic area. A: Huh? Isn't it called ethnography? Can a survey in a Han village also be called ethnography? It's puzzling...... The above is a simulated dialogue scenario, although it is fictitious, but its similar situation has indeed happened in real life, at least we can find from the dialogue that we can find that the understanding of the word "ethnography" in the professional and non-professional fields is very different, and the more critical is the understanding of the word "nation". For example, the terms "National Pictorial", "Ethnic Unity", "Ethnic Affairs Committee", "China Nationalities Daily", "Ethnic Autonomous Region", and "Ethnic Policy" do not include the Han nationality in their subtext, and it is foreseeable that this stereotype will be difficult to eliminate within a certain period of time. Therefore, following this logic, the term "ethnography" is also very reminiscent of the study of ethnic minorities only, in other words, the term "ethnography" can easily be firmly limited to ethnic regions or ethnic minorities. So the statement "I do ethnographic research in Han villages in southern Fujian" and "ethnography of Han villages" in the above scenario dialogue are indeed incomprehensible. This shows that it is difficult to use "ethnography" to include the research objects of ethnology, especially anthropology and sociology. Although the term ethnography has become customary, there is a certain misunderstanding, at least with the negative side of the popularization of the discipline of anthropology to the general public, and it is time to rethink it. It can be said that it is the translation of the word "ethnography" that brings about the confusion of "ethnography". As Wang Mingming pointed out, the literal meaning of "ethnography" has never fully reflected the rich connotation of its methodology, and the problem comes from the ambiguous and mixed word "nation". When the word "nation" was translated into Chinese, it caused us more than one more problem. Since the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the term "nation" in China has referred to both "national nation" (specifically, "Chinese nation" or "Chinese nation") and "ethnic minorities". From the analysis of this text, it is not difficult for us to find the specific character of the word "nation" and the particularity of the Middle and Chinese Realm. Therefore, it is understandable that ethnography that begins with ethnicity has various misunderstandings, and the term "folklore", which is similar to ethnography, is basically no problem, mainly because everyone has a relatively unified understanding of the content contained in the word "folklore". Since the root cause of the misunderstanding lies in the word "nation" itself, we should briefly sort out the ins and outs of "nation" in China and have a general understanding of its past and present lives. First of all, the word "nation" is missing in the ancient Chinese system, and the concept of "tianxia" is probably barely close to it. For example, the revolutionary pioneer Sun Yat-sen once put forward slogans such as "expelling the Tartars and restoring China," "nation, civil rights, and people's livelihood," and "the republic of the five ethnic groups" to oppose the Qing Dynasty and oppose imperialism, and particularly emphasized the overall concept of the Chinese nation. In the 20s of the 20th century, Mr. Cai Yuanpei translated "Ethnography" as "ethnology", especially he published the famous article "Speaking of Ethnology", which gradually brought "ethnology" and "ethnology" into the world's field of vision. After 1949, it was mainly influenced by the Soviet national theory, especially Stalin's theory of the four characteristics of the nation and the theory of national self-determination, under this framework, ethnic identification and national social history investigation were carried out. From Sun Yat-sen to Stalin to the ethnic identity of the People's Republic of China, this evolutionary process has determined that the word ethnic is inevitably influenced by strong political ideology on the mainland. At the cognitive level, "ethnicity" refers specifically to ethnic minorities. At the practical level, too much emphasis is placed on "nationality", i.e., ethnic differences, national characteristics, and national autonomy. Many scholars believe that overemphasizing ethnic differences may have a certain negative impact on national unity, harmony and stability. Therefore, in the 21st century, there are indeed some problems with the concept of "nation", and many scholars have reflected on this, such as Professor Ma Rong, who called for the gradual replacement of "nation" with the concept of "ethnicity" in the cultural sense. The word "ethnography" is composed of "ethno" and "graphy", which is derived from the Greek, "ethno" has the meaning of race, ethnicity, people, cultural group, etc., while "graphy" means painting, image, record, etc., and it is more accurate to translate as "zhi". On the whole, the translation of "Ethnography" into ethnography is a literal translation rather than a paraphrase, which has a lot to do with Mr. Cai Yuanpei's translation of "Ethnography" into "ethnology". According to scholars, after Cai Yuanpei, "anthropologists Lin Yaohua, Ling Chunsheng and others began to use 'ethnography' to refer to ethnography that is different from ethnography that is 'biased towards comparison'." Moreover, the fixed translation of "Ethnography" as "ethnography" was in the 80s of the 20th century. Some scholars pointed out: "In 1987, the editorial department of the "Ethnic Translation Series" held a special "Symposium on the Translation of Ethnic Studies Terms", and the meeting decided to use "ethnography" and "ethnology" as the translation names. "The translation process of the word 'ethnography' clearly shows that the word has been deeply marked by the times in the translation process." The translations of the terms "ethnology" and "ethnography" both directly understand "ethno" as a nation, rather than as a group of people or cultures. There is no problem with this in Europe where one country or one nation is located, and there is no difference between a person belonging to a certain nation and belonging to a certain country, but in modern China, which is multi-ethnic, this is a problem. Literally, ethnography is the study of the social culture of a certain ethnic group, so it is not strange that an ethnographic study conducted by a researcher who goes to a village or a factory in southern Fujian can be understood as "going to a village or a factory to conduct a survey of ethnic culture"? It can be seen that in the middle and Chinese environments, the inclusion of "nation" is relatively limited, especially when the research objects of ethnology and anthropology have been greatly expanded. The word "ethnography" is also related to ethnology itself, and at the beginning, Western anthropological research did begin with uncivilized and ignorant societies, and even had a certain colonial color. But then there was a gradual change, from an ignorant society to an enlightened society. However, the translation of "ethnography" was still at the level of the time, especially since the research object was limited to the relatively backward ethnic minority areas. "Ethnography" first makes people think of the research object is related to the nation, but now many anthropological research objects have nothing to do with the narrow sense of "nation", anthropological ethnography has entered a large number of Han studies and cities and even outside the borders, such as the study of urban immigrants, the poor, disadvantaged groups, etc., greatly beyond the scope of the narrow sense of the nation, related disciplines include urban anthropology, educational anthropology, medical anthropology, etc. What's more, the object of anthropological research has also moved beyond the physical, and there have been studies of cyber anthropology and WeChat ethnography. In recent years, the topics of our doctoral dissertations include "From Refugees to Citizens: An Anthropological Study on the Identity Change of Vietnamese Returned Overseas Chinese in Huadu Overseas Chinese Farm" (2009), "Tianya Virtual Community: A Study of Text-based Social Interaction on the Internet" (2005), "Population Mobility and AIDS Risk along the Baolong Expressway Construction Project" (2008), and "Prison Subculture Research: An Anthropological Study of Prisons in the Pearl River Delta as an Example" (2008), "Shenzhen Volunteers and Their Organizations: An Anthropological Investigation of Volunteers in Shenzhen" (2007), and his master's thesis is "The Emerging Community of "Reckless" Artists: An Anthropological Investigation of the Songzhuang Artist Community in Beijing (2008), "Wedding Photography in Kunming: Vision, Body and Consumption" (2008), "Kidney Transplantation, Body and Culture: A Case Study of Kidney Transplantation in Kunming, Yunnan" (2007). These papers cover a wide range of fields, such as Tianya Virtual Community, WeChat, Vietnamese Refugees, Population Mobility and AIDS in Highway Construction, Prisons, Volunteers in Shenzhen, Emerging Communities for Artists, Wedding Photography in Kunming, and Kidney Transplant in Kunming Hospital. Imagine that these anthropological topics that have already earned degrees and say that they are doing ethnographic research, or conducting research through ethnographic methods, especially going to prisons and hospitals to do ethnographic research, would be strange to non-specialists. Therefore, the author believes that the continued use of the term "ethnography" will not be conducive to the popularization and expansion of the discipline of anthropology. From the misunderstanding of "ethnography", we can find that "ethnography" has generated some objections in the new period, and cannot accurately express the new state of research and the ever-expanding research objects. With the changing times, it is time for this formulation to be revised.
Ethnography的基本特征
The next question is how to fix it? If it is revised, what kind of thinking should be followed? I think one of the key points lies in the accurate understanding and definition of "Ethnography" in English, and only by grasping the basic characteristics of "Ethnography" and clarifying its connotation, extension and boundaries can we evaluate various translations about it. In other words, if the translated word is as close to its original English meaning as possible, it should become a gold standard for judgment and selection. The American anthropologist Havilland defines "ethnography" as "a systematic description of a particular culture based on first-hand observations" and explains its nature as follows: "Ethnography is largely descriptive in nature, providing (more theoretically aspiring) ethnologists with basic data, which ethnologists may then use to study a particular aspect of a culture by comparing it with the same aspects of other cultures." According to Baidu Encyclopedia, "Ethnography is a kind of writing text, a unique research method in anthropology, and a writing about customs based on first-hand observation and participation in the field work of a population." From the above definition, we can conclude that its characteristics are at least: first, fieldability. The emphasis on field investigation, that is, the "wildness" of stepping out of the study, is different from anthropological research that is "on the rocking chair" without leaving home. "Ethnography" generally does not include work on the basis of historical documents. Second, descriptive. Ethnography is about the description of culture, emphasizing the use of "white sketching" to write the survey data and materials (i.e., providing basic data for ethnologists as mentioned above), and at the same time doing as little theoretical analysis and commentary as possible (not that anthropology does not need theory, but that analysis and research is another stage), that is, "de-theorizing", with the goal of completely reproducing the local "indigenous" cultural landscape. In his 1926 article "Speaking of Ethnology" (General Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 12), Mr. Cai Yuanpei believed that ethnography was the descriptive level of ethnology, and ethnology was a comparative discipline when describing the relationship between ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology. It can be said that the descriptive characteristics of ethnography have been unanimously recognized by anthropologists. Third, since the formation of ethnography must be based on fieldwork, it also has some common characteristics of fieldwork: long-term period, participatory observation, residential experience, first-hand information, and so on. In the history of anthropology, the more classic ethnography includes: "Voyager in the Western Pacific" (Malinowski), "Andaman Islanders" (Radcliffe-Brown), "The Nuer" (Evans-Pritchard), "The Coming of Age of the Samoan" (Margaret Brown), "The Coming of Age of the Samoan" (Margaret Brown). Mead), "Jiangcun Economy" (Fei Xiaotong), "Golden Wing" (Lin Yaohua), "The Story of Lincun" (Huang Shumin) and so on. Among these works, the first part of the works, such as "Voyager in the Western Pacific" and "Nuer People", is an early ethnography, which is the result of long-term fieldwork in an obscurantist society, while "Jiangcun Economy" and "Golden Wing" are already studies of civilized society, and "The Story of Lincun" belongs to the outstanding representative of contemporary "personal life history ethnography". However, neither the object nor the content of their research seems to be relevant to the word "nation" as we understand it today. Of course, more importantly, these ethnography have the basic characteristics of ethnography summarized above, while Malinowski's famous book "On Culture", Radcliffe-Brown's "Social Anthropological Method", and Lévistrauss's "Structural Anthropology" cannot be classified as ethnography, because these belong to theoretical construction and analytical research, which do not coincide with the basic characteristics of ethnography.
关于“Ethnography”不同翻译的比较
Different ideas lead to different answers, and now we will use the basic characteristics of "Ethnography" summarized above to evaluate the different translations. First of all, the term "ethnography" was first translated as "ethnography", which has been questioned a lot, and is now largely ignored in anthropology. "Ethnography" is mainly studied in physical anthropology and has a certain colonial color, so I will not comment on it here. However, many other similar disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, education, and communication) have actively borrowed from anthropology to borrow their unique theoretical methods, most notably fieldwork and ethnographic methods. In the field of education, some scholars believe that "anthropologists used ethnographic methods to study educational issues roughly after the 30s of the 20th century, and since the 60s, many anthropologists have applied ethnographic research methods to the study of educational problems, and educational ethnography research has gradually matured". However, unfortunately, due to various reasons, some references are directly used in dictionary translation or classical translation without in-depth understanding, and continue to use concepts such as ethnography and ethnography, thus causing misunderstandings. For example, Feng Zengjun and Wan Ming still use the term "educational ethnographic research methods" in the textbooks of educational anthropology, which is a basic textbook, and it is conceivable that this will bring extremely unfavorable and confusing guidance to later scholars. We have also found that many research papers in educational anthropology follow this theory, such as the title of the dissertation "Ethnographic Investigation of the School Journey of Rural Left-behind Children", and a careful reading of the paper reveals that the research topic has nothing to do with "ethnography" or physical anthropology. Some of the papers were simply translated as "Pedagogical Folk Chronicles", but some scholars have since changed to "Ethnography", reflecting new trends and changes. In the field of communication studies, some communication scholars also use the terms "communication ethnography" and "communication ethnography". Such chaos just shows that "Ethnography" urgently needs an accurate and unified Chinese translation. It is conceivable that if anthropology and ethnology do not form a standardized translation of their most basic disciplinary concept, "Ethnography", then other similar disciplines will be at a loss to learn from them. Secondly, some researchers believe that it can be called "group of people", which is a concise and slightly classical title, etymologically speaking, "ethno" has the cultural meaning of different groups, and now it seems that the biggest advantage of this concept is that it emphasizes the group and adheres to the original meaning. The so-called "three-person group" shows the characteristics of anthropology's study of the overall culture of society, that is, the holistic research paradigm of anthropology on culture, and the culture studied by anthropology must be the product of the common acquisition of the group. However, anthropological research does not always seem to be group-based. For example, Huang Shumin's "The Story of Lin Village" revolves around Ye Wende's personal life history, can this classic ethnography become a group chronicle? In addition to emphasizing the great advantage of "ethnography", while emphasizing the group, "ethnography" lacks the investigative and field nature of the basic characteristics of "ethnography", in other words, it surpasses "ethnography" in the definition of research objects, but there are shortcomings in the generalization of research methods. Because the word "crowd" cannot see the "action" characteristics of anthropological field research, and it is precisely this "action" that is the soul of anthropology, an anthropologist without "action" becomes an "armchairanthropologist" without "action". In addition, the biggest problem is that it does not accurately describe the "blank drawing" and "de-theorizing" characteristics of ethnography, which are faithful to the record, valuing sketches without personal evaluation, and the basic characteristics of fieldwork, such as long-term, participatory, and first-hand information. In other words, "crowd" is a good word in all respects, but it is not a word that reflects the color of the discipline of anthropology, but it may become a professional vocabulary in disciplines such as public administration, sociology, and even psychology (especially social psychology). In addition, we know that "group science" is more likely to be associated with the concept of "group studies", and the modern thinker Yan Fu once translated "Group Studies", which was first used by Yan Fu as a synonym for sociology. Based on the above considerations, the use and promotion of "group chronicles" in the anthropological community does not have a high degree of generalization, and it is also slightly unfamiliar in terms of terminology, and it is not easy for most people to accept it for a certain period of time. Finally, some scholars use the term "cultural history", such as Professor Zhang Xiaojun of Tsinghua University questioned ethnography, arguing that "ethno", translated as "nation" in Chinese, is actually inappropriate, and the more appropriate translation should be "cultural group", so the direct translation of "ethnography" should be "the history of different cultural groups", because the history of cultural groups includes the records of different nationalities, races, and various ethnic groups; It also includes the chronicles of a tribe, a village, a company or even a city, because they all have different cultures. Zhang Xiaojun also clearly mentioned that "of course, some people also talk about using 'field zhi', but 'field zhi' only emphasizes the field, or it is better to call it 'cultural zhi'." The author believes that this formulation is more influenced by Western culture, that is, ethnicity should be translated as "ethnic group", emphasizing the meaning of culture and group meaning, and eliminating the ambiguity that "nation" is equivalent to "ethnic minority". In addition, the term culture in anthropology includes both material culture and spiritual level, but it refers to the latter more often, and "cultural history" is easy to understand as referring specifically to the study of the spiritual level. At the same time, there is still a lot of debate in the anthropological community about the definition of "culture", which is a headache. According to statistics, there are more than 170 different definitions of "culture", and since the term "culture" is still controversial and unresolved, it is difficult to define the term "culture" accurately. In addition, there is still a problem with the formulation of "cultural chronicles", that is, it is easy to be confused with the local cultural chronicles compiled by local cultural departments at all levels, such as "Chu Cultural Chronicles", "Jiangsu Provincial Cultural Chronicles", "Shandong Provincial Chronicles· Cultural Chronicles", etc. It can be said that the current understanding of "culture" in the mass media is more complex, and the term "cultural history" has been generalized and widely used, and it is no longer suitable as a professional term for a specialized discipline. If the above disagreement is mainly focused on the definition of "ethno" and the generalization of "field action" in "Ethnography", then there are also scholars who have different opinions on the suffix "graphy". For example, some scholars believe that "Ethnography" should be translated as "cultural descriptiveness", and propose that "such a translation is not only beneficial to the development orientation of cultural anthropologists to study culture, but also beneficial to students' understanding of research culture when studying cultural anthropology, and to the training of students in teaching practice". The author believes that the rationality lies in the importance of "culture" in anthropology, and also takes into account the descriptive nature of "Ethnography", which has great advantages, and is the closest translation to "Ethnography" in the etymological sense. But the disadvantage is that this translation is too straightforward to express its meaning, lacks some charm, and is not concise enough." Cultural descriptiveness" does not come to the fore, but it offers an alternative way of thinking. Some scholars have pointed out that our ancestors used the style of "Zhi" to record the customs, landforms, and products of a certain region. For example, national history, local history, and so on. Of course, there are also chronicles on certain things, such as food and goods, geography, and so on. It can be seen that "zhi" is actually the best translation of Chinese tradition and Chinese connotation, which makes up for the regret of "cultural descriptiveness". Moreover, if the translation of "graphy" in "Ethnography" as "learning" seems to be a bit off the original meaning, because, crucially, "Ethnography" is not a disciplinary concept, but more of a research method or research philosophy. In this sense, "cultural descriptiveness" is still unsatisfactory. From this point of view, the author believes that the best way to translate "Ethnography" is to return to anthropological research itself. Anthropological fieldwork is the most basic and important research method in this discipline. All field research, including questionnaires and press interviews, is fieldwork in a broad sense, and is mainly used for archaeological site excavations and anthropological investigations, which refers to "the process by which specially trained anthropologists go into a community and obtain first-hand research materials through direct observation, interviews, residential experiences, and other participatory methods". It can be said that fieldwork has become a sign for anthropologists, especially beginners, to get started, to cross the threshold of coming-of-age rites, and to be a housekeeper. The corresponding English is "fieldwork", it can be seen that the word "field" is basically literally translated from "field", which is a very vivid description of the state of anthropologists' investigation work, and the word "Ethnography" is a record based on the "action" of fieldwork, in terms of the relationship between the two, anthropologists believe that "fieldwork is the most basic way for anthropologists to obtain research data, and is the source of ethnographic framework", so to speak, There is no "Ethnography" without fieldwork. Therefore, it is ideal to translate the description based on fieldwork as "field journal", which vividly reflects the research process of writing a book based on fieldwork, as well as the writing characteristics of the "white drawing technique". Professor Zhang Xiaojun said above that "field zhi only emphasizes the field, so it is not suitable", and the author just wants to point out that it is necessary to fully realize the importance of field investigation. More importantly, fieldwork related to fieldwork generally does not cause a misunderstanding similar to ethnography, that is, fieldwork is to go to the field to do research, because the word field in Chinese itself contains a certain metaphorical meaning, which refers to a wide range of activities, and can refer to all activities out of the book. In addition, the word is very vivid and everyone will understand. Moreover, if "ethnography" is replaced by "field history", the misunderstanding of ethnicity by non-professionals in the dialogue at the beginning of this article will basically disappear. In recent years, more and more anthropologists have begun to use the term "field zhi" in their works, such as Zhuang Kongshao, Weng Naiqun, Jing Jun, Chen Gang, etc., which reflects the renewal of disciplinary concepts and the expansion of perspectives. As for some scholars who advocate translating it as "field culture", I think it is not necessary to add the word "culture", and anthropological research will involve culture, which seems to be a big move. Some people also expressed such worries and concerns, "Field Chronicles" only emphasized whether the field would "lose people", and whether the study of people without a place could still be the main research method of anthropology? The author believes that this kind of worry is also unnecessary, just as we do not have to worry about the "lack of people" in the field investigation, the field record can be directly understood as the record in the field, which naturally implies the human factor as the subject of the record. However, the author's slightly extra layer of concern is the field itself, that is, the understanding of the field should be held at a broader level, and the field should generally refer to field research outside the study (field), including research objects such as cities, hospitals, and online virtual communities. In short, fearful doubts and misunderstandings about fieldwork will certainly continue to arise in non-professional fields and professionals, but as far as fieldwork is still regarded as the primary research method by anthropologists, as long as fieldwork is still widely recognized by anthropologists, and as long as the term "fieldwork" continues to be used, the term "fieldwork" can exist without losing its vitality.
From "Ethnography" and "Ethnography" to "Field History"
For different academic concepts, some anthropological researchers believe that ethnography is a fixed usage of the academic community, and oppose other usages, believing that "ethnography is a consensus reached after a long period of full debate and careful consideration, and it can be said to be one of the achievements of ethnic studies in the mainland." In recent years, some people have been thinking one-sidedly, changing the translation, and creating new words (translated as 'cultural zhi' and 'field zhi'...... It will only be a 'neglect of one over the other', a misunderstanding or a waste of energy", "to deal with the translation of this academic concept by paraphrasing rather than by renaming to avoid unnecessary confusion". It should be said that this view is very representative, especially among the older generation of systematically trained anthropologists, who really cannot understand why the once familiar "ethnography" should be questioned. Moreover, we have found that the more professionally trained researchers are, the more they tend to be in the middle of the process and fail to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of the concept itself, and therefore take a more conservative view. But if you think about it, do any of us who study anthropology ever have any doubts or confusion about the term "ethnography" when we first learn about it from an anthropology professor or from Introduction to Anthropology? Does it feel a little awkward? There may be more or less of them, but since this is the name of the discipline norm, although it feels a little strange and reluctant, it is pleasantly accepted and used. However, we can't help but wonder if the word "ethnography" is just a word that fell from the sky and was definitive. The formation of the term "ethnography" also gradually surfaced in the questioning of existing terms, especially "ethnography", which itself represents the progress of the discipline of anthropology. Second, does the term "ethnography" have permanent explanatory and generalizing power? I'm afraid that this is not the case, and the above statement shows that it has already gone wrong and caused misunderstanding by the outside world. Also, can we continue to discuss or question some of the "consensuses" that have become part of the Chinese ethnology and anthropology circles? Is this really the case when scholars say that "the casual practice of coining new words only takes care of one over the other, creates misunderstandings, or wastes energy"? Indeed, we should see the need to adhere to the norms of the discipline and the downside of the name change for the discipline. However, if an academic concept has become objectionable in the new era or cannot accurately express the new state of research and the ever-expanding research object, should we have some innovative courage to face it directly, to reflect, discuss or "create new words"? The author believes that becoming a consensus is only one that has won the approval of many people, not a final conclusion, and the more the truth is debated, the clearer it becomes, and if there is no controversy, it will only imprison one's own vitality, and the contention of a hundred schools of thought will never be a waste of energy. Some scholars believe that the concept of "ethnography" is very important, "it is a consensus reached after a long period of full debate and careful consideration, and it can be said that it is one of the results of mainland ethnic studies", and if it is reflected, it will "cause unnecessary confusion" and affect the stability of the discipline. Some scholars think that it may not matter what the name is, that it is just a Chinese translation, but we should understand what it is talking about. The author believes that an academic keyword must have clear expression and explanatory power, and in this regard, it should not be casual. However, it must adapt to the changes of the times and the progress of the discipline, and make new adjustments, so as to keep pace with the times, in order to maintain its vitality. This is because as far as anthropology is concerned, the study of people and their cultures has always been full of vitality and open-mindedness.
The word ethnography is also easily associated with the word ethnology, which has always been called ethnology in China due to European influences. Due to historical reasons, ethnology has basically become the study of ethnic minorities in China, for example, most of this discipline is set up in ethnic colleges. In recent years, the National Social Science Fund's research on ethnic issues has almost entirely involved ethnic minorities, and there is no research on Han areas (although Han is the largest of the 56 ethnic groups). Is ethnology only about ethnic minorities? Absolutely not, judging from the dissertations of Peking University, Sun Yat-sen University and Xiamen University majoring in ethnology and anthropology, the research object has greatly exceeded this space limit. Due to historical reasons, the term "ethnology" that we are now accustomed to no longer encompasses new fields of research, such as prisons in southern China, volunteers in Shenzhen, wedding photography in Kunming, and emerging communities of artists in the city. Therefore, in a sense, the difference between "ethnography" and "field history" actually corresponds to the different concepts and visions of "ethnology" and "anthropology". From ethnography, ethnography to fieldwork, it reflects the evolution of the discipline of anthropology, which is the expansion and renewal of research objects and research concepts. With the development of the times, we should look at this issue with the attitude of keeping pace with the times. It is conceivable that at present, most anthropologists will continue to use the term "ethnography" when describing the state of fieldwork, but with the change of the times, it is expected that more and more scholars will reflect on and face up to the shortcomings of "ethnography" itself and pay more attention to the use of "fieldwork".
⭕️ Source: Folklore Research, No. 3, 2018