8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

1/10

Copyright fjManches te r Uni ve rs it y P re ss 1992Whi le c opyr ight i n t he vol ume a sa whole i s ves te d i n Manches te r Uni ve rs it y P re ss , c opyr ight ini nd iv idua l c hapt er s bel ongs t o t he ir r espe ct ive a ut hors , a nd no chapt er may be reproduced wholl y ori npa rt w it hout t he e xpre ss permi ss ion i n wri ti ng of bot h a ut hor a nd pub li sher .

Publ ished by Manchester University PressOxford Road, Manches te r, 1113 9NR , UKam/Room 400 ,175 F if th Avenue,N ew Yor k, NY 100 ]0 , USA

DI.\lrihuud I.'xdwlvf~}' in t he U : :' 'A and Canadal~ySt. Martin' s Press , Inc .,1 75 F if th Aven ue, N ew Yor k, N t 1 00 10 , USAIhili..\h Lihrary Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record fOTthis hook is available from the Bri ti sh LibraryLibrary ojCofigriss Cataloging in Puhlicatirm Data appliedjorISBN 0 719 0 368 2 S hardbacko 7 [ 90 368 J 6 paperbackRepri nt ed i n paperba ck 2000

Phoroscr in Linot ron Ehrhardtby Nor thern Pho to type se tt ing Co L td , Bol ton('rinli:din Great Brit:lin byB idrt lc s L td , Gui ld fo rd a nd King' s Lynn

Contents

List of illustrationsContributorsPreface

Port One Authority", representation and anthropologicalknowledgeIntroductionC D Anthropological vis ions: some notes on visual and textual

.~ authori ty Kirs ten Has trup2 The lexical spaces of eye-spy Chris topher P inney\2 ) Admissible evidence? Film in anthropologyPeter Lo izos4 Film as d is cours e; the inventi on o f an th ropo logic al

realities Pe te r I an C rq.w jo r dPnrt Two Image, audience and aesthetics

IntroductionG ) ' 7 Compl ic it ies of s tyle Davidl lJacDougall6 The aesthet ics of ambigui ty Da i V a ug h an

Which f i lms are the ethnographic f ilms? _+laralsBanks\\ Tho const ruc ts an th ropol og ic al know ledge? Toward atheory of ethnographic film spectatorship -Wihon Mar t inec

1)'II"lThree Politics, ethics and indigenous imageryIntroductionAnthropological t ransparency; f ilm, representat ion andpolitics James C Faris

Page viiviii

38

265(L66

859099116131

165 j71

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

2/10

vi Contents10 Visual imperialism and the export of ~reiudice: an

exploration of enthnographic f ilm Kath leen Kuehnas t11 The e th ic s o f e thnograph ic f ilm-maki ng T im o th y A sc h12 Mvths racism and opportunism: film and TV

repres~ntat ions of the San Kyall G. Tomasell i13 Pic tur ing cul tu re t hrough i nd igenous image ry: a t el li ng

story Richa rd Chal f i' 1 114 Re~ res en ta tion by t he Othe r: Indone sian cult ura l

documentation Felicia Hughes-FreelandPart Four Televisionand newtechnologies

Introduction15 Anthropology in broadcast ing Andr e S i ng e r16 Tel ev is ion nar ra tive and e thnogr aphic fi lm

Terence Wright17 Anth ropo logy on te levis ion: what nex t? Dav id T urt on18 Hypermedia in ethnography Gm )' S ea ma n a nd H o me r

rVilliams19 The potenti als o f v ideodi sc in v isua l an th ropo logy : some

examples A lan lHa( far laneIndex

183

196205

222

242

259264274

283300

31 2

317

List of illustrations

Sti ll s f rom Venus S tudio weddi ng v ideo f ilmed i n Nagda,central India , 1989 Page 30 -1'Punch' the Natal 'Bushman', photographed by W. F. Bushell, 1926 36-7Installation of the .Maharaul Shri Pratapsinhji, Bansda State, 1911 40-1

4 Pukhraj Jain and the India Gate. Wedding montage photographby Suhag Studios, Nagda, 1983 42Phot og raph o f Ongka fr om T he K aw el ka - O n gk a's B ig M o ka(Na irn , 1974), u sed a s a bas is f or a pos te r advert isi ng theRoyal Anthropological Ins ti tute 's 2nd International Festival ofE thnograph ic F ilm, Manches te r 1990. Pos ter des igned byJames S tr aff on f rom an idea b y Marcus Banks 43Andaman Is lander s, 1911. Pho togr aph by Seton-Kerr 45Mursi watching a Di sa p p ea r in g wo r ld film 46Photo-montage by Stacy Rowe from a design by Wilton Martinez 130

8 Wilton kIartirw.2SWho constructs anthropological knowledge?Toward a theory of ethnographic filmspectatorship

In recent years , cri ti ca l an th ro po lo gy ( lifford nu d M arc us ]98 6; M arc us an dFis cher 1986; Cli ff or d 1988) has cha ll enged the ' tr uth fu lnes s' o f , re ali st' e thno -g raph ie s and ant hr opo logis ts ar e incr ca~ingl y exper imenti ng \. .. .th par tial , 'open 'and evoca tive fo rms o f et hnog raphy, adopti ng 's el f- consc ious' and d ia logi c st yl esofwriting (Crapanzano 1980; Taussig 1989 and others). The main concern ofth is c ri ti que i s, to a la rge ext en t, s ti ll f ocused p rima ril y on author sh ip , s tyl e andt ex tuali ty . Al though ther e is consider abl e deba te ove r t he impac t o f t hese al ter na -t ive text s, l it tl e a tt en tion has been paid t o thei r r ecept ion by t he ' gene ra l pub li c' o rto their linkage with the larger process of the construction of cross-culturalknowledge and cultural identities.

An increasing number of studies in visual anthropology have focused on thepolitics of representation in ethnographic film, challenging the authority offi lm -maker s (Pi nney 1989; Banks 1990), t he ir per pet ua ti on o fpa tr ia rcha l v ie -wsof other cultures (Kuehnast 1990), and their colonialist stereotyping of the'p rim it ive' ( l\ la cDougaU 1975; Ni chols 1981; Tomase ll i ct. al., 1986; Lansing1990). This recent deconstruction of ethnographic films has questioned theirapparent s tabi li ty, but only to a limi ted extent. Agai n, thes e c rit ic al st ud ie s tend t oconsi de r the t ex t [ i. e. f ilm ) a s the f undamen ta l s ou rce o fmean ing and t o ove rl ookthe role ofthe 'reader' (i.e. viewer) in its construction.'

In the pedagogical practice of ethnographic film, it is the films that aregenerally seen as the exclusive vehicles of anthropological knowledge - with ar ela ti ve ly fi xed s et o fmeani ngs ; many inst ruct or s te achingw it h e thnogr aphi c f ilmcon tinue t o use an ' archaeo logi cal ' a pp roach a ssuming t ha t 'meani ng is a treasurethat can be excavated through interpretation' (Iser 1978, p. 5). Despite theimpact of films on an increasingly large viewership, there is a notable absence ofstudies of ethnographic film spectamrship. Films are still seen as the result of

in 'the field' I

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

3/10

132 Image , audience and ae sth et i csassumpti on t hat t he construction of anthr opological knowledge about ot hercultures is the exclusive domain of the anthropologist/author,

In thi s p ape r I exp lore the rami fi cat io ns of va rious read er -o ri ent ed theo ri es asa ' provoca ti on' t o the f ield of v isu al a nthropology to red ir ec t o ur a tt ent ion to thes pec tator o fe thnographic f ilm. I be li eve we n eed tomove f rom the domin an ce ofauthor- text to a theor etical consideration of the viewer/reader as a power fulsource of signification in the construct ion of anthropolog ical knowledge . Under-graduat e students, t he primar y users of ethnographic fi lm, are by no meansp ass ive rec eptor s: t hey are nec ess ar il y inscr ibe d in the f ilmic t ext ; t hey int er actwith films ; they decode tex ts using the ir interpret ive s trateg ies and ideolog ies andthey eventually constitute textual meanings.

What mo tivat es thi s co nc ern " ,. .th t he ' re ade r' i smy f ind ing of an int erpret iv e' gap ' b etwee n the int ent io ns o f f ilm-maker s/ ins tructor s and stude nt r es ponse(Mar ti ne z 1990 a, 1990b ). In a s tudy of studen ts' r esp on ses to a v ar iety of f ilms inan introductory anthropology course a t :me University of Southern Califomia/ Jhave found t hat: many students decode f ilms in an 'aber rant' way (Eco, 1979),with relatively high l eve ls o f di sint er es t, ' cu lt ur e sh ock ' and /or al ien at ion) andwith a r el at iv el y l ow l ev el o f ' un d er st an d in g ' (corresponden t 'Nith , tex tual andp ed agogical i nt en ded rnc nu ing s) . The se read ing s we re ge ne ral ly l ink ed to thespecialised formut of conv ent ion al an d 'f actua l' et hnograph ic f ilm and to whatwas per cei ved as t he {bizarre' appearance and behaviour of the {pr imitive'. Inc un trnst , wh en s tud en ts' i nt er est vi las st imu lat ed and ' und er st an ding' , a nalyt icinsight , a nd empathet ic r ef lexivi ty maximi sed , i t was g ene ral ly in r esp ons e toemotionally engaging films with humour and narrative drama, made-f or- TVdo cumentar ie s, f ilms using a ref le xive s tyl e, close -up por tr ay al s of the l ives ofind iv idua ls , and /o r filmic a tten tion to topics of general conce rn (is sues ofgender,economics , e tc .) . This film prefer en ce and the more a ct ive spe ct ator ship wh ich i tsuggests was a product o f-st imulated curiosi ty for the 'primit ive' combined withstude nt s' des ir e for ent er tainment , a n ee d for s el f- empowe ring know le dge andpleas urabl e \ \' aY5o f see ing . Meanwhi le more st ri ct ly informat ion al and ov er tl yeducational films were commonly seen as 'dry' and 'boring' and, most dis-concertingly, tended to leave st udents wit h r einfor ced and even augmentedcolonialist stereotypes of the 'primitive' .

Th es e ' symp tomat ic' r ea dings ind ica te more tha n a pedagog ical p roblem; theys ugges t t ha t t he us e of f ilm has power fu ll y ca talyse d the c ri si s of r epresen tat ion int he cl assroom. Similar to r esults r eported b) , Hearne and Devore (1973), myf ind in gs ind icat e that we may be pe rp etuat in g the de valuing a nd st er eotyping ofother cult ures ..Mor eover , by overl ooking student responses, we may also becont ribut. ing to reconsti tut ing anthropol ogy as a univocal and hegemonicd isc our se. In the long run, s tud en ts' c ons truct ed know le dge i s r e- in ser ted intothe c ircu it o fan th ropo logica l meanings, into the large r sets o fcu ltural d iscoursesof the 'primitive' and into the 'pol itical unconsci ous' of t he 'Ot her ' in the West(j ameson 1981) . In shor t, we need t o listen to students' voices more careful ly;t .hey speak for more than jus t 'un in fo rmed ' readings.

134 Image , audience and ae sth et i csMarxi st an d femin ist a pproac he s and a mo re radi cal La can ian p sy cho an alyt icperspective, focusi ng' on t he ways in which f ilms , understood as produc~ ofi deo logy, 'i nt erpe ll at e' (Al thus ser 1 971 ) and 's uture' (Mi ll er 1 976) sp ect ator swho . a re a lready const ituted as the ' subjec ts ' o f dominan t d iscourses (c.g. cap ital ,~atna rchy). Contemporary approaches a re progressive ly ass imilat ing theoret icalmflu~nces from recep tion theorie s and 'cu ltural s tudies ', focus ing on the d ia logicrelat ion between film s truc tu res and spectator act iv ity.

Marxi st theor ies of mass communication have also swit ched attention to thereader . The Frankf urt School of the 1930s and 1940s (Adorno and Horkheimer1944), and the l arer 'cri tical theor y' (Gou1dner 1976; Gitl in 1978) both sawviewers as a lienated consumers dominated by an overpowering 'cu lture indus trv'ab le to orches tr at e ev ery asp ec t o f the rec ept ion p roc ess . Tn res ponse , ' cu lt ur ;ls~di es ', a mu lt idi scipl ina ry pe rsp ect ive wh ic h c ombines so ci al s ci enc es, s em i-OtiCS, film theory and feminism, has questioned the power of the text andel abo ra ted on th~ rol e of h egemonic reinst at io n, eq ua ting the proces s of r ece p-t ion with the politi cal 'str uggle for meaning' (Wi lliams 1977 Hall 1980 ]985'Morley 1980; Bennett 1982; Fiske 1987). In this view, ~eade~s are' 'ove~~determined' (Althusse r 1971) by the ir soc io -h is to rica l pos it ion (clas s, sex , race,cul tu re , e tc .) , which powerfu lly a ffec ts the ways they a rc ' in te rpel la ted' bv textua ldisco~r ses. '~et, .6riven t he multiple and contradictor y nature of signif}.i ngpract ices , sub ject ive experience and soc ia l relat ions , v iewers nevertheles s p lay anact ive rol e in ne go ti at ing meaning s a nd contest ing heg emon ic ide ologi es. P ;l st -I?odcrn and discur sive theories of culture (Kuhn 1982; Grossberg, 1984) havefurther elaborated on the notion of 'difference', the multiple moments ofresistance in the text and the viewers' pot ent ial t o deconstr uct domi nant mes-sa ges . S imi lar ly, F is ke (1987 ) has emphas ise d the power of a ud ien ces to d er ivep leasure from tex ts by reading them oppositionally.

While these disciplines have primari ly conceptualised the r ole and power oft he reader in terms of (textual) 'domi nance' or (reader) 'contestat ion', t her e isgrowing at te nt ion in e ach f ie ld to di alog ic mode ls of communicat io n . .Mv view i sthat n.eitht:r of t he se e xt reme po si ti on s a ccoun ts for the c omplexi ty at' ethno-graph ic ~ lm spe ct ator s hip. Ra th er , we ne ed to consider the stud ent /sp ect ator asboth acnve, resourceful, motivated and crit ical an d p as sive, s ubmis sive a ndal ien at e, d. Thes e rol es and s tan ces , fur th ermo re, wi ll b e si tua ti on al ly af fect ed bythe parbc llJ~r co~text o fv iewersh ip (e.g. schoo l set ting , educa tional philosoph iesand strategies, film repertoire). We need to concentrate on the process ofr ece pt ion i tse lf and on how an thropologi cal k nowledg e i s c o-const ruc ted in theinteraction.

The reader in the textT!le reade r is~hespace on which a ll the quo ta tions tha t make up ;1 writing are inscribedWithout any ofthem being los t; a tex t' s unity l ie s not in it'> origin but in its destination.(Barthes 1977, p. 148)

Toward a th em} ' o f e th twgra ,ph ic f ilm . I '/ J nta .(o r sh ip 13 3Understanding the ethnographic filmspectatorS tud ies on the anthropology of v isu al communicat ion ( \Vor th 1981 ; 'Nor th a ndGross 1974) have elaborated on the interpretive strategies and semioticmechanisms by which viev . . . . r s decode and 'assign' meanings to fi lms. In theirv iew, good communica tion occurs when r ead er s move beyond 'a tt ri but ing ' t he irown pre-assumpt ions t o texts and learn to 'i nfer' authors' i ntended meaning.\Vhi le thi s model i s h elpful for u nd er st an ding the dyn amics o f st er eotyping (vi aat tr ibu ti on) , i t r et ains an ul timately t ext -cen tr ed p er spec ti ve by l imi ti ng the rol eof the r eader to 'assigning' meanings to texts, rat her [ han co-const ructingsignification and knowledge.

Macf rouga ll (1978) h as moved c los er to the or ies tha t c hal len ge the dominan trole of the author in the construction ofmeauing. 1 le Ius cha racterised 'modern 'ethnograph ic f ilms a s op en -ended ' res ts' i n tha t t hey inco rpo ra te and jux taposemul ti pl e per sp ect ive s ( e. g. au tho r, f ilm subject s, 'i ndigenou s commen tary' ). H isapproach suggests d isplac ing' t radi tional forms of representat ion and w avs ofreading in favour of participatory film s tyl es wh ich al low for more c omplex formsof communication: 'The underl ying insight of the film-as-text i s t hat a film is aconc eptual s pa ce w ithin a t ri an gl e formed by the [ fi lm ] subject , f ilm-maker , an daudi ence and represents an encounter of all three' (1978, p. 422). Alt houghpointing in t he r ight di rect ion thi s approac h h as not evolved theo re ti ca ll y no r h asit b een a ppl ied in empi ri ca l studi es of r ecep tion. Fur thermo re, Mac ljoug al l' sa dvo ca cy o f mode rni st t ext s c ar ri es wi th i t a n exc ess ive op timi sm that ov er looksthe unequa l p ower rel at ion s w ithin the f ilmic t ri an gl e ( cf ., Ma rt inez 1990b ) . 3 Inthe light of these limit ati ons wi thin our field, I shal l turn t o other disciplineswhich have developed complex models of interpret ive processes and reade rship:l iterary c ri ticism, film theory and Marxist ' cu ltural s tudies '.

I n l it er ary studi es, t he shi ft f rom tex t- cent red theo ri es [ i. e. Formal ism , NewCri ti ci sm and st ruc tural ism) to re ce pt ion the ory ( ja us s 1 982 a, 1982b; I ser 1978) ,r eader- response studies (Gi bson 1950; Hol land 1968; Fish 1980; Tompkins1980) and theories of the text (Barthes 1977; De Man 1979; Eco 1979) has beene xp er ienc ed as a v er it ab le r ev olut io n (Ho lub 1984 ). The se n ew pa rad igms h av echallenged the not ion of 'objecti ve' works and proposed a responsive and pro-ductive r eader as the centr al r ole player in the consti tut ion of meaning. Giventhe ir at ten ti on to the l arger hi stor ic o-cul tu ra l proce ss of commun ica ti on, r ec ep-tion theori es have been assimil ated int o mass medi a and f ilm st udi es and havemore recen tly merged with pos t-structural is t and pos tmodern perspec tives,

Historically, film schol ar s h ave pr ivi lege d the power of t ext s ove r s pe ct ator s,gener ally r eserving any cr itical role f or specialised fi lm analysts. Largelyinf lue nce d by st ructural ist s em iot ics and Laca ni an ps yc hoa na lys is (Metz 1977 ),film theori sts have discussed t he 'cinemat ic appar atus' and the unconsci ousmechanisms by which the spectator identifies with the guze of the camera and isthe reby c ons truct ed a s ' su bj ect ' o f t he f ilmic t ex t_ _More rec en tly (Mulvey 1975 ;Dayan 1976; Mi ller 1977; Oudar t 1977; Heath 1981) they have incor porated

T o w ar d a theory oJetlwographic film spectatorship135

Some of t he most useful theor ies of the r ole of the reader have resulted f rom theconver,g'ence of serniorics with phenomenology in l iterary s tudies . Ecc 's 'mode lr eade r (19:9) a nd I se r' s { impl ied rea der ' ( 1974) are two of the most inf lu ent ialr epr e.~~nt atl vcS, ,accor~ing to whi~h t he r eader is inherent in t he text. Eco~onc el \'e ~ o f th e .model r eade r as a t extual st rat egy ', o ne ' su ppose dly ab le to d ea llllterpreuvcly with the expressions in the same ..vav as the author dealsge nerat iv ely wi th them ' (1979, p. 7) .'1Whe the r d ir ect ly o r ind ir ect ly addresse d inth, e t ext , t he rea der i s p os it io ned ' in' a nd (by ' i t, ideal ly match ing semantic framesof ~~n ,~pe te~ce, kno \\ :I~~g: and ideolog ies sha red by addresser and addressee.Isel s lJ1.lp~.lCdeade.r 1S ~ ~texhl[ll St.I'UctlII'C'and n 'structured act' or a 'process'of me~mn/;: l pro. ductlOn: ] he term mcorporar es bot h the prestructuring of theput~ntlal meanm~ by the text and the reader's actua lisa tion o f this potentialth~~ugh the r eading process) ( Iser 1974, p. xii). iimilarly, f ilm theorv d is rin-guishes between the ' subjec t-posi tion ' p resc ribed by the text and that of thehU"_1anagent who actually engages with that tex t (Heath 1981; S ilve rman 1983'Smith 1988). 'Thus, we nee. d to focus on the specif ic strategies texts use to 'creat e' their

~ead ;r an d ~oguide ~e rea ding a ct iv it y. Eco 's ( I9 79 ) di st in ct ion be tween ' op en 'a~~ cl osed strategies pr oves hel pful for consi der ing the par ticular effect ofdi ffer ent types of ethn?graphi c film on communication. I n shor t, 'open' texts~arl}', all? generate: a 111ghlevel of semiotic 'movement' (i.e. communica tive andmterprenv c dynamics, act ive int er act ion of r ead er -t ex t, i nt er textual r el at ions )and thus carr~' an e~li cit 'i nvitat ion' for the reader to do t he interpretive work.?cn. crated wI:h an 'ldeal~ r~ader in mind, 'open' texts are suggest ive and sus-;~p: lb~e to ~ v ir tu al ly un limi ted rang e of p oss ibl e r ea dings . Yet , some semio ti c, ,11111Its"re imposed pre~ise ly by the tex tual s trateg ies: 'An open tex t, however,,~pen "It be; cann~t alford whatever interpretation. An open text outlines aclosed project of It s Model reader as a component of its str uct ural strat egy'(Eco 1979, p. 9) , 0In contr~st, .~losed' texts car ry sp ec if ic inst ruct ion s to be rea d in a pa rt icul ar

way, thu s s ign if ican tly d el im it ing the v ar ia bi li ty of r ead er 's i nt erpret at io ns. The~~)rces of c losure do not, however, necessa ri ly ensure transpa rent communica -non , nor d~)~ey '. 'i i~ en, ce' r ead er s who do not ma tch the 'mode l r eade r' . Close dtex ts a re s ti ll 11 1 sermo tt c 'movement ', v et of a d if fer ent k in d' mo st c ri ti cal lv thea re ' inm10de~ately open' ~oa.b,erran(decod ing, resul ting lar~e1y from a mis~~atc~~etw,e~n, the int end ed ~ r. mod~ l' r ead er a ~d ac tua l r ead er s. Gene ral ly see n a s abe tr 'l }~ of the au tho r S i nt ent ion s or a fai lu re o f communicat io n (mos tly at t hele"e~ of de~ote,d mes~ages) , abe rran t readings should not , however, necessa ri ly~e vi ewed ~na ne gat ive ' way . They ca n a lso e nt ai l cr it ic al an d eve n oppo si ti on alrnterprerarinng

Perhaps on e of the mos t s ignificant f indings of my study (1990b) is the hivhco rr esp ond en ce.betwe en f ilms u sing ' op en ' t ex tua l st rat egi es and more e lab~-!:~te .~,an~ r~fl~~ve respon.~es . : ~~hes trongest pat te rn of abe rran t readings andI eacnons of disint erest, ali enation and shock corresponded to more 'closed'

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

4/10

13 6 Image , aud ience and aes the tic sst ra tegi es. Suppor ting Macl zouga ll' s (197S) pos it ion, t he se r esul t: s ugges t thatthe more 'open' fi lms, t hose usi ng nar ra tive, experiment al , o r r.eflexH:e styles (~.g.F ir st C o nt aa , C an nib al T ou rs , N um b er O u r D a ys ), empower VIewers bY,allO\,~ngt hem space to negot ia te meani ngs i n a more d ia logic , in te ra cti ve way of re ad ing,generally resulting in more complex interpretations (~s we shall see la,ter). Incontrast, the responses to conventional ethnographIc film, those usmg the'closed' strategies of 'factual' and distanced representations. (e.g .. Trance~ndDanc e i n B a l i, Asch/Chagnon Yanomami 111ms), suggest a closing of mterpt' .e ttvespace and thus an apparent dis empowerment of viewers .. ~ though assuming areader w it h cons ide rable ant hropo logi cal knowl edge , thes e fi lms genera lly workto reduce ambigui ty by a tt emp ting to e li ci t the 'r ight ' o r ' tr uth fu l' re sp?nse f romspectators - and thus act as catalysts for aberration. At the same time., mostethnographic films convey representations of cultures largely foreign tospectators. They are thus potentially

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

5/10

140 ImaJ! ,e ,aud i ence and aesthet i csage ( seven to eighteen months old), when we gain access to the symbol ic viarepression ( i. e. ca st rat io n) o f imaginary ide nt if ica ti on w ith the mo the r, we en terthe discur sive complex of culrure (t he f ield of the Other) . In t his process, we, assub jects, become s ignifiers within a network of s ignifica tion , becoming ' subjec ts 'of t he enunc iat ed, t ha t i s, we a re ' spoken ' by ideolog ical and d iscurs ive forma-t io ns. Yet in thi s proces s o fc rea ti on of mean ing and ident it y, we a re abo a li en at edf rom our own d rives {a pha ni si s' or t he 'f ading' o f th e subject ) an d con st it ut ed as'lack', which si gnals the f ormati on of the unconscious and t he inaugurat ion ofdes ire (desire of the Other),

In La can ian t erms , human s ign if ic at ion c on st an tly r eprodu ces a li enat ion andde si re ; for inst anc e, t he ar ti cu lat ion of a s tat ement in l anguag e gains mean ingthrough llegalivi~y) tha t is, by e limina ting o ther a lterna tive meanings tha t remainin tJ1C field of the Other. The unconscious also speaks, through constantopeni ngs and closures, the codes and significrs of cultur al discour ses (tr heunconscious is t he discourse of t he Ot her '). This perspective of fers a key fora na ly s in g 'We st er n r ep re se nt at io n s o f, and unconsc ious des ire for , the 'primit ive'as il cross- cul tur al si gni fi er . As Sn id (1979) , Tod crov (1984) and Kuper (1988 )havo argued, the 'primitive' has been culturally constructed as 'other'S byneg at in g rac ial an d cu ltur al i den ti ti es in o rder to const ruc t, by oppos it ion, anide nt it y o f t sel f'. Th roughout the h istory of ,Vest e rn c oloni al ism , these repre-sen ta tions of o therness have been loaded with a du al ist ic and fet ish ise d image ofthe ' pr im it iv e' a s bo th 'o rigina l presen ce' and ' la ck' o f ' ci vi li sat io n' (Whi te ] 978;j ameson 1981 ). Mo re sp ec if ic al ly , t hese forms of signi fi ca ti on c an he obs erved ine thnographic film tropes as " ,' el l a s in s tudents' p reconcep tions ofrhe 'primit ive' ,as J will discuss below; s imilarly , s tudents' unconsc ious s ignify ing pract ices (e.g.dr eams) s eem to rep roduce the dua li st ic r ep res ent at io n o f the 'o th er '. 6

In film-viewing we a lso find a constan t d iv is ion of the sub ject-in-language :media ted by unconsc ious d iscurs ive pract ices , the film ' subjec t' {i.e. the positionto be oc cup ied by the actua l spectator) is an entity ' cons tant ly missing and movingalong the flow of images' (Heath 1981, p. 88). Yet, as with all discursives itua tions, spectators a re a lso repea tedly united or sutured i nto the t ex t a t t he l evelo f a common ideology. I n it i al l y c o ncep t ua l is e d as a ' pseudo-identif icat ion' o r asthe 'juncti on of the imagi nar y and the symbolic' (Lacan 1977; Mil ler 1977), t henot ion o f su ture ha s bee n ex ten sively a pp li ed in f ilm the ory in ways tha t pa ral lelIser 's model of 'fi lling in'? At a micro level, typical mechanisms of suturing arethe t echniques of s hot /r ev er se sho t, by wh ich the missing f ie ld of the sing le sh otis fil led with the 'presence' of the reverse shot (Dayan 1976; Oudart 1977), andpoint-o f-view editing , i .e. gazing c haract er /g aze d imag e/gazing c ha ract er(Ro thman 1976 ). At a more mac ro l evel , He ath (1981) se es s uture as a 'mul ti pl efunction' tha t entai ls large r mechanisms of ' jo in ing' the sub ject /spectator to thecha in of t extual d isc our se ( 'no di scou rse w ithout s uture' ) an d s ugg es ts focu singon the level of text ual nar rat ivit v: 'narrat ive makes the joi n of symbolic andimaginary, process and reflectiol; ... the spect ator is placed as subject f or then ar rat iv e rel at io ns and con st it ut ed in the ir r ef le ct io n' (1981 p . 122) . Th rough the

142 Image, aud ien ce and ae sth et i cssp ec tator , a d omina tion root ed in the Wes tern ' P?l it ic al unc ons ciou~ ' ( jame son1981). \Vith in this perspec tive , we need to ~tudy .tur~1cr h~:\' t.udents constructmean ing s through the ir mul ti pl e forms of a li enat ion , i dent if ic at io n, p lea sure a ndpower relat ions with the film sub jects. At t he same t ime, ,~e.mu st n~t ~o rge t t h~role of student/subjects as acti ve gap-fi ller s: as recent cnnques (Linker 1984)Smith, 1 988) ha ve emphas ised , ev en though s ig: t~ ifying pract ice~ - b oth c on-scious and unconscious - cannot operate outside cultural discourses, themechanisms ofsu tu ring do not a lways trans la te into monolithic ortranscendentalprocesses of domination. The fnlb'111cl ltat i.on of textual di sc.our se and. themult ipl e forms of inter pel lati on necessaril y create contradictor y subj ect -positions that all ow space for spectat ors' agency and resistance. In o~der toanalvse the various informing' discourses that affect the construc~on ofspe ct ator s' su bj ect ivi ty and thei r cor l'e spond~nt ~on st ru e[ ion .of mearung, ~'eneed ro conside r the media to ry role of soc io -b is to ric p rocesses 11 1 spectatorship.

Interpretive srrutcgtcsIThe unconscious] represents nothing, but it produces. It me~ns ~lo~hing,bu.t.il w~rk~;De s i . , ! , . : makes i ts en try w ith (he g ene ral co ll apse of the que st io n \ \ h at doe s Itmean.( De lc uz e/ Gu ar am I tJ 83 , p .1 09 )L ike al l s pec tator s, s tud ent s ' rea d' f ilms guided by their own conve.l1tionali~e.dknovvledge of wha t is 'good ', ' be lievab le ', ' in te re st ing' o r 'boring '. ~"'h~r~as HISdifficult to assess how int roduct ory courses aff ect students' subjectivity andint erpret ive conve nt ions in the long run , by a~alys ing viewe rs' s et s o f ~1I ." J} eCla-t io ns, prefer enc es and af fect ive v aluat io ns o f f ilms and rep rese nt ed subject s " ..ccan add to our understanding of the interpretive strategies students use toconstruct anthropological knowledge. .

The need t o c onsider t he r ole of i nter pretive medi ation leads us to the f ield ofcont empor ary hermeneutics and its cr itique of 'essential ism', t he beli ef in theexist ence of an ult imate meani ng. As Gadaruer ( 1975) and ot her s (e.g. Ge~rtz.1973) have proposed, interpr etation can onl y be underst ood in the . context ofcultu ra l and h is to rica l media tion .More rad ical ly , and s imilar to Lacanian theory,Jameson (1981) claims that we have access to the 'r eal' onl y t hrough. texts andint erpret ive p arad igms ( 'i deo log emes' ), F ish (1980 ) argues that ~cr~ IS no sll.chthing as ' pu re pe rcep tion since 'r eal it y' i s a lway s mediat ed by SOCIalmterprcnvec onven tion s: r ead er s do not ' rea d' t ext s: t hey 'wr it e' t hem.

Unl ike I ser 's i ndividu al is ed rea der , F ish propo ses that o ur int erpret at ion s areshaped by communal pat ter ns and that all texts ar e onl y const itut ed. as such .by' int erpret ive commun it ie s) which ' ar e made up of thos e wh? s ha r. e. mterpret l, vest rat egies not for reading ( in the conventi onal sense) but for vonuug tex ts , torconstituting their properties and assigning their intentions) (.1980 p. 171,emphasi s added). Working on t he basis of comm?n un?erstandmgs and stra-t eg ies , d if fer ent commun it ie s ( e. g. anthropologi st s, f ilm-make rs, s tud ent s)def ine thei r own und er st and ing of wha t 't rue' o r ' good' t ex ts ar e, an d how to rea d

Toward a t hem } ' o f e tlmo gr a ph i cf ilm s p ec la f or s/ ti p 14 1s utur in g of sub jec ts into i ts nar rat ive, f ilm di scou rse int erpel lat es sp ect ator s _ vi ar ecogni ti on and iden ti fi cat ion - and forces them top ar ti cipat e in i t s i de ology.

From this perspective, we can anal yse t he vari ous wavs i n which student!sp ect ator s ar e ' ho und into' ethnog raphic f ilm text tl

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

6/10

f 144 Image , audience and ae sth et i cs Toward a th eo ry o fe thnograph ic f i lm specta to r thip 145tend t o generat e more 'sur pl us meaning' (Morley 1980). In gener al students areopen to~innovative' forms oftextua li ty tha t cha llenge the ,i r conventi?n.s, but onlyto some extent . They prefer dramat ic, ir onic or techni cally sophist icated andstyl ise d f ilms a nd may ev en rej ec t t ex ts that r adi ca ll y ch al len ge the v ery na tu re ofrepresentat ion (e.g. R eassem blage, F ilm s Art: Dreams). .

Thu s there i s a n ee d to e xp and stude nt s' f ilm l it er acy , t he reby al so expa ndmgtheir hori zons of expectati ons. jauss ( 1982b) suggests that this last processo pe ra tes as an e nd les s p la y ofqu es ti on and a nswer ' whe re in the t ext i s p rimar il ya n an swer but no t n ec es sa ri ly a fo rmulat ed o r e xp li ci t on e: at t he s ame orne , t ext sq ue st ion read er s a bout the ir r esp ec ti ve ho ri zon s. Cons tan tly s hi ft in g over t ime,t ext s al so ac t a s mediator s be twee n d if fer en t hi stor ica l ho ri zon s. Ja us s propos esan historical r ea di ng , o r ' ap pl ic at io n', n s t h e most advanced and comprehensiveint erpret ive ac ti vi ty , o ne whe re rea de rs su ppo se dly c an f in d the (answer ' of t hetext by distinguishing' and reconstructing past hor izo ns o f expe ct at ion a~d thc n,'a pp ly in g' t he ir n ew aes th et ic unde rs tan ding - thus broa de ning the ' ho ri zon (! tone 's own exp er ie nc e v is -a -vi s the expe ri enc e o f the othe r' ( 1982b p. 1 46 ). Th~sreconstruct ion ofhorlzons has important implica tions for the use of e thnographicf ilm i n reaching: despite t he f act t hat many instr uctor s show films whi ch havebeen produced in various context s over the last si xt y years, the hist or ical con-text ualisat ion of these t exts i s not undert aken in most introductor y courses.H istor ica l r ead in gs a rc fund amental i n ethnog raphic f ilm rece pt io n. Th ei r n eg -lect not onl y limi ts student s' understanding of the f ilms but, even worse, alsot end s to pe rp etua te the not ion tha t t he p eoples r eprese nt ed arc ' soc iet ies w ithouthistory' (Wolf1982).

j au sa 's t he orv of ae sthet ic r ec ep tion o ffer s va lu ab le ins ig ht s for the a na ly si s ofs pe ct at cr ship. i t i s, howev er , r el at iv ely ind if fe ren t t o po li ti c~ l a nd i~eo lo gi~ald is cour se s and p rac ti ces a nd , l ik e l ser 's, i t i dea li ses the u to pi an a nd mnov

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

7/10

14 8 Image, audience and aestheticsf d . . drrectlv they do so indirectly,communicating social structures 0 omm~tlOn, IT~('; -' rates similarly

pri marily v ia conno ted Ofunconsc ious mean1 llg~. fhIS pro~es~ OP~f . ' truth' a s;. conventi onal ethnographi c film, wher e the interests o scienn I~ . "m . I (B di 1977) often represent hegemonic ideolog iesform of cultural capita our ndk - led e of the ' other ' ( al tho ugh thi s va ri esand discourses of power over an 110\\ e g . . . d ith filmdi r 11 how much the con st ruct ed know le dge IS negotiate wi .~l~~j:~t~:gn~ on the degree of cultu ra l c ri ticism and self-re flex iv ity of authona ll J l '; ' i '~ f W 9 8 0 ) has observed that, in order "0 perform their 'i deological work':med ;a r educ er s ~nc od e t ex ts by se lect ing a nd negot iat in g 'p refer re d meal ll ll fs rwh ich ~ im to p red et ermine the proce ss of dec od ing , t hat IS, to obL1l': !'arucua:_f d di , 'This does not' however, translate Into perfectly transp'pr~ e rre re a, .m tJ~ '''IS rests 'mel ' rcHClI. :rsembody mu lt ip le a n d f ra gme n ta ryent commumca on. , .. .. .f" ..saryex cri ences, i deologies, nnd discourses, t her e IS a :e.l~rlOn 0 no ne~e_ - 1 tP espondence' between encod in r a nd d ecoding ac uvmes . Ha ll p~opos esh t1~ .corr f " . a " solutions to t ellr ead er s ' ap propr iat e' t he mean ing s tha t bes t t as tmagms I). hei f

di , ve '5 that confirm t elf sense 0own soc ia lly experienced con tra tenons, ansv I t1 e that challenge theirIf th rightfulness, and oppose or negate lOS ...~~C~ IO~~C " {ormations and identi ties. Reading i s t h~s a struK~/e for Slgmfi~a~o;~within he remonic st ructures. Thi s politi cs of Sl~I~lfi~atJon, cncor_npasstno" If er cn ti al ~' Pes of int erpe ll at ion and sub jec t p osmorung , : '~ sul ts In ob,s~nabl~p at te rns o f r e sp ons e or ' pr efer red reading' ( i. e. ' he gemon ic , negot iat ed ', u pposirional'). . . d ' onses to most tropes ofHezemonic r eadings wer e found III stu enrs resp. I' ' . .

o. " 1990)'" the most 'persona narranves canethnographic film (Martinez a , c\t::n.. ., i.m licitly disem-.gge r r eadings tha t l egi timi se the au tho ri al dlSC~lI~sc by . P . _ ..rn . h film subjects or encapsulating them within dominant mterprettveP~)~I~~mgst ~ ros s- cu lt ur al l abel s or st er eo typ es (e. g. , ' th ey ba si ca ll y hav e ~o~ ~ ~ : : l r ; m , they only l ive f o r fighting'). As discussed above, however, .hegemonIcreading~ (~ommonly linked to aberration) were more often observeddl~.respon~~to the conventional format of 'dosed', f act ual , single-event fi lms an . cemed r.objectifying representations .of the 'primiti~e '. I~he~e ~ases, S~lde~~i:~~n:~(a~~ret re at mo re read ilv to thei r precon cep tions III react ion to the 11 _ r .a ll owed for a Ji al~gi c vi ewe rsh ip, t he minimum cul tl~ral . con rcx :u~ I sa ttO, .l linterna l to the film, and the ' lack ' o fidentif icatory coml11untcaw~n, A WIder, rang~f ne otiatcd readings were found in response to texts ustng 111ore. o~et1

o g. I tr 'als and films with greater internal contextualisation.strategies, persona por a), , '. - r.. r ' ever 'one is d iffe rent ',Soc ia lised into the d iscourse ot _ h .be~al p lu ra !lsm, (e~g' ruden~s do ' rivi lege the' pr imi ti ve p eop les are s omewhat s im il ar t o us ) , many S Pl' . I'except ion t o the rule' and 'i ndi vidual fr ee will' and can th~s ap~1ear/e .~t l~:~o en to negot iati ng texts. Yet, as seen above, negotiated readm~~ were mu ec ),d : e 'fit' (i .e. sut ure) into dominant cultural ident ities and dlScoms~s, .ar l~ b~.p reconcep tions of the 'primit ive" resul tkningin m~l~c~:es,)m b~;f:~.~~~:tI~oVI~~~:s~rthe film subjects (e.g. 'they dont 0\'" any e er .

15 0 Image , aud ience mid aes the t icsown set o f d iscurs ive pos it ions and reconst itute the ir interpret ive technolog ies.Ev en closed f ilms may gene rat e r esi st ance to the cxot ic isc d, o bj ect if ied and/ordi scmpO\\'er ing represent ation of peoples. Some students, for example, ar cc ri ti cal of the powe r rel at ions be tween the a nthropologi st a nd the Yanomamosub ject s in A Man Called Bee; o ther s no ti ce and ide nt it y w ith the Yanornarnoreluct anc e to b e f ilmed inTheAxFight. Howeve r, w ith the ex cep tion o f the rar eviewer who r ejects the whol e repr esentation as authorit ative, cl osed texts aregeneral ly read from an aberran t/hegemonic perspec tive .

In response to more open or 'negotiated' films, which actively voice therepresented subjects' perspect ive, students fi nd numer ous oppor tunities t ooppose di sempowe ring represen tat ions . As in the c ase of mass med ia vi ewer s'resistance to patr iarchy, femal e st udents tend to negotiate and even opposepatriarchal discour ses in et hnographic film (f or exampl e, in response to Nlai,S 1 0 1) 'o f a I K un g Wom a n, A nd ea n liJI()lIIe1l,J\IIIlIiStli Women) . Although this critiquei s g ene ral ly d ir ect ed aga ins t t he ' bn ckwn rdn ess ' of r eprese nt ed cu ltur es , it alsotriggers students' resistance against their own culture's forms of sexualhegemony. Reacting 1:0 po li ti cal d ominat ion , s tud ent s h av e come to cr it ic ise theint ent ions of the f il ll 1-mak( :! rs' , ev en in ' bal anc ed' or ' sympathet ic' f ilms l ik eF i rs t C o nt ac t as 'conceali ng' col oni al expl oitation. I n response to i W ai ds a nd/ v l a d l l 1 1 l S , some students oppose the represent ation of black women as racist,'degrading' and 'offensive. Yet there are some limits to resistance: manystudents also feci threatened by socio-cultural criticism and thus read it as'negat ive' (i.e., as a negation of t hei r own discur sive positi on) . 1n r esponse t oCanni b al T o u rs , for ex ample, s ome stude nt s r ea ct defens ive ly, a rgu ing tha t t hef ilm-make r h as e xaggerat ed a nd that t he tour ist s a rc po rt ra yed in 'u nreal is ti c'ways.When opposi tional readings do occur they ar e generall y motivated by the

spectators' predisposi tion to respond in such a manner . As Condi t (1989) hasa rgu ed in he r an alysi s o f col lege s tud ent s' r es ponse s to TV programmes, accessto and par tici pat ion in an organi sed 'counter-r het oric' may prove to be morerelevant than personal competence f or generat ing crit ical and oppositionalr eadings . I ha ve al so not ice d ( l9 90b) that s tud ent '> who a re act ive in pa rt ic ul arsp ec ial i nt er es t group s {e .g. , h omeless su ppor t organ isat ion s, ant i-Apar the idmovement) read fi lms i n predominant ly opposi tional ways, quest ioning t hed iscmpower in p rep rese nt at io n and st er eotyping o f f ilm subject s, whi le tho sewho b elong to mo re c ons ervat ive organ isa ti on s (e. g, f ra terni ti es a nd s oror it ies)place themselves in a hegemonic position and allow themselves less space tone got iat e t ex ts and thei r own preconce pt ions . Suc h c on st ra int s on the op ene ssof students to 'difference' point to the need for analysing the boundaries or'difference' in terms of i ts a rt iculat ion with hegemonic power.

In thi s r es pec t, Hal l (1985) argue s tha t po st -st ru ctural ism has pr ivi le ge d theprinciple of 'difference' (i.e. discursive fragmentation) mer 'unity' (i.e.discursive hegemony) and proposes t o bridge t his binary opposition. Recon-s idering hegemony as the express ion of 'pluricen te red' and 'mult id imensional '

T owar d a t he o ry o f et lm o g ra p hi tj il m s p ea a to r sh ipoppos it iona l ( i.e. counter-hegemonic ) readings were ~ou~~ mainly in respons~ torelat ively 'open ' f ilms vvhich convey a c r it ic a l and s~lf-cnucaJ message , seem~n~to t ri gger a re- ev aluat ion of studen ts' pr eco~cepnons . Re sponse s c hal len gingtextual authority or actively dcconstructing hegemonic me~sagcs (e.g.col oni alism, cultural domination) in order t o r econst ruct alternative forms ofknowledge (e.g. polit ical express ions of cultu ra .1 relat iv is .rn) wer~ a lmo~t ~o~-existen t. Often , s tudents' pol it ical and cultu ra l a lignment, Ifany , with the pnrn.1-t iv e' r es ul te d in romant ici se d idea li sa ti on (e. g. (we s hould l ea ve them alone ).Evoking a lterna tive sub ject-pos it ions anti/or particular form~ of 'otherne~s' ,oppos it iona l readings were more frequen t among stL~denls margll;~ t? or O~tsld~mainstream culture (e.g. among Africani\mcrlcans and 1 . htrd \\ orldstudents). , .

These responses need to be ana lysed e~iLica lly to avo id ri.gid gcncral ls at l?ns .C ri ti cs of the not io n of h egemony and of Hal l' s t yp ology o f-p re fer red rea~l11gshave a rgued tha t the lat te r ove rlooks and reduces the .'~n i~ 'e rsal ity' o f negutia redreadings (Newcomb 1984), polaris ing the reading actJv tt~' In terms o~dominanceand oppo si ti on (Fi sk e 1986 ; Condit, 1989), and that its. forn:ulatwn seeks anecessa ry correspondence between experience and tex tual ity (Gro~sberg 1984).These crit ics regard the r ange of ideol ogi cal responses as a contll 1uu~ r atherthan a discret e categor isation and the dynamics of response as. a multi ple al: dvari able positi oni ng wit hin discur sive formati ons. In part icul ar, r.., !ar xlst.discourse theory has expanded Hall's model by emphasising t~e ~o~on. ofdifference at t he l evel s of me an ing ( i. e. p olyse .n~y, op cnn ess )~ subJe cl1~ lty (~.~.f ragmen tat ion , ov erdet erminat ion , s ubject po si ti ons ) a nd so ci al format io n ( i. e.cultural diversity). '. .

Drawing pr imar il y on La can , A lthuss er and Fou cau lt , d lsc~ rslve model s IIIcu ltur al s tud ies (Kuhn 1982; Iv1cRobbie 1982; Hall 1983; (Jf~,ssberg 1984)r ej ect t he sep arat ion b erween ' so ci ety' ( cl ass int er est s, economic i

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

8/10

152 Imag e, a ud ie n ce a nd a e st he ti csreader in specific contexts of reception. The results of my research showsigni ficant var iabi li ty depending on the speci fic teaching approaches employed;these results have to be correlated with st ud ie s of spec ta to rsh ip i n d iff er en tcontexts (e.g. public and private colleges and universities, high schools, adultspectatorship) and with comparative analyses of responses in dif ferent his toricalset tings. This dual approach to art iculat ion will not on ly provide ins ights , into theways in which spec ta to rs ' re ad ' et hnog raph ic fi lms and fi lm-make rs and ms truc-tors

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

9/10

156 Image , a u di en c e a n d a es t he ti c sethnographic film spectatorship. It al so r ep re sents an u rgen tly needed r esponseto the cr isis of representation in anthropology, a cr isis which requi res that weenhance om sel f- reflexive and sel f-cr it ical pract ices in order to ident ify the l imit so f our knowl edge cl aims as we ll a s their pot en ti al impac t on the soc ial const ruc -tion of anthropological knowledge.NotesJam extremely grateful to Carolyn Taylor for reading earlier versions ofthis paper and forher invaluable contr ibut ions to i t. I a lso warmly thank Lucien Taylor, Claudia South,Diana Lee, Paul Gelles and Nancy Lutkehaus for their helpful comments andsuggesnons.1 Whil e r espec ting t he pa rti cu la r ' language' o f e ach medi um and it s f orm of com-

munication, Iuse the term 'text ' to refer toboth written and filmicmedia. Drawing ontheor ies of the text (Barthes 1977) , I s tress the term [0underline the similarities ofwritten and visual media as f or ms o f d i sc ou rs e a nd communication) as both productsand p roduce rs o f m ea nin g a nd k no wle dg e. Correspondingly, the terms 'reader','viewer', 'spectarcr' ;U1(\ ' reading subject ' are used interchangeably to emphasise theidea o r ucrive

8/6/2019 WiltonMartinez

10/10

160 Image, aud ience and aesthet icsMckobbie, A. (1982), ' Jackie : an ideology of adolescent femininity' in B. Wai tes, TBenne tt, and G. Marti n, ( cds.) , P op ula r C ult ur e: P as t a nd P re se nt, Croom llelm,T.ondon, pp. 263-83 .

Metz, C. (1977), Th e Imagi u ll r y S i K ll lj ie r , Indiana University Press, Bloomington.i\:lil1er,j. (1977), 'Suture', Screen, X\'lII, 4, pp. 24-34.Morley, D. (1980), T he ' Na ti on wi de ' A ud ie nc e: S tm cm re a nd D ec od in g; British Film Insti-tute, London.

Mulv e y , L. ( 19 7 5) , ' V is ua l p le a su re a n d n a rr at iv e c in e ma ', Screen, X V I, 3 , p p . 6 -1 8.Nelson, C. & Grossberg, L. (eds.) (1988), k l tt rx is l! ! a n d t h e I nt er p re ta ti o n o r Cuitnre,

University ofIllinois Press, Chicago ,Nichols, B. ( 1 981 ), J deu iu I: !Y a nd tho III/age, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Oudart.]. (1977), 'Cinema and suture',S~'''efll, Xvf l l, 4, pp. 35-47.Pfeil , F. (1988), 'Posrmodemism asa "structure offeeling" " L . Grossberg and C. Nelson

( e ds .} ,/ ll la r xi sm a n d t he l n t e rp r em t io u (lIeu/lim:, University ofTllinois Press, Chicago, pp.JRl-403.Pinnev, C. (1989), 'Appearing wC)rldg',illllllm/!%!:.'JJ 1I)(/.(~J',V, 3, pr. 26-8.

Radway,}. (1984), Rc ( ul il lg ' h e ROII/ f l . l lec: WOl ll en, Pa tr i ar chy a nd Popul a r L i te r at u re , Univer-s i tv o fNo r th Carolina Press, Cl1llpclllill.

ROl l;man, W. (1976), 'Agains t the system of the suture' , B . Nichols (ed.) , . ll ov ie s a ndMe/h(}d.~, University ofCnlifcrnin Press, Berkeley, 1,pp. 451-59,.

Said, E. (1979), OI'ICII/ l l l isl II, Vintage Books, Xew York.Said, E. (1983), 'Opponents, audiences, constituencies and community', H. Foster, (ed.),

"l7u:Allli-Aestflelic: Essays (/11 Postll/odem Culture, B lY P r es s , Seattle, pp. 135-59.Silverman, K . ( 19 8 3) , T h e S n bj ea o f Se m io u a, Oxford Univer si ty Press, Oxford.S imon, R. and Dippo, D. (1986), 'Oil critical ethnographic work', A nl hr o pn /o ! {y a nt i

Ednouion QJlal1er(v, xvrr, 4, pp. 1 ()S-202.Smith, P. (1988), D is ce rn in g { he Subject, Lniversity ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis.Spivak, G. (1988), Tn Other Wo r ld s : E s sa y s i n C u lt u ra l Poluia. Routledge, New York.Taussig, M. (1987), Shamanism , Colonialism an d t he W ild . iH {J fI , University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.Todorov, T. (1984), The Conouat o/AlIIerim, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., New York.'Tomaselli, K.,WilliamsA; Steenveld, L.and Tomaselli , R. ( 19 86 ), A1 J 'l h, R a ce a nd P om e r:

S ou th A fr ic an s I ma ge d o n F il m a nd T V, Anthrcpos Publishers, Bellville.Tornpkins.]. (ed.} (1980), R e ad er -R e sp on se C ri ti ci sm : F ro m F or ma li sm t o P o st - . .Structuralism.johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Trinh T. \,1. (1989), Wom an , N a si cc , O I Ju .: r, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Tyler, s. (1986), 'Post -modem ethnography: From document of the occul t to occul t

document' in]. Clitford and G. Marcus, (eds.), ~Vl"ilillgCulture, University of Califurn illPress, Berkeley, pp. 122-40.

Whi te , l I.(1978), Tropics , , /Di sclJlme, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.WilJi