Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Power in Place/Places of Power: contextualizing transnational research

Power in Place/Places of Power: contextualizing transnational research he aim of this article is to help us think about new ways to appropriately contextualize transnational ethnography at a time when structuralism, Marxism, global modernity and other meta-theories used to frame ethnographic narratives in terms of “structured wholes,” have lost their intellectual purchase. My starting point for this exercise is the early call made by George Marcus for new ways to begin “imagining the whole” in a period when the grand narratives of systems theorists of all stripes were losing their capacity to inform our understandings of how the world works. (Marcus, 1989: 7-30) In an essay by that same name Marcus called for the development of an ethnography of places and their interconnections rather than a place-focused ethnography of single locales. He argued that “an ethnography of complex connections, itself, becomes the means of producing a narrative that is both micro and macro, and neither one particularly (1989:24).” The shift from place to places, simultaneously and complexly interconnected, by intended and unintended consequences, Marcus argues, requires three methodological moves, namely, (1) the use of multi-locale ethnography, (2) attention to networks of complex connections and to their simultaneous, reciprocal effects, and (3) an effort to contextualize the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png City & Society Wiley

Power in Place/Places of Power: contextualizing transnational research

SMITH, MICHAEL PETER
City & Society , Volume 17 (1) – Jun 1, 2005
Download PDF
29 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/power-in-place-places-of-power-contextualizing-transnational-research-A3UaYk3adD

References (9)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0893-0465
eISSN
1548-744X
DOI
10.1525/city.2005.17.1.5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

he aim of this article is to help us think about new ways to appropriately contextualize transnational ethnography at a time when structuralism, Marxism, global modernity and other meta-theories used to frame ethnographic narratives in terms of “structured wholes,” have lost their intellectual purchase. My starting point for this exercise is the early call made by George Marcus for new ways to begin “imagining the whole” in a period when the grand narratives of systems theorists of all stripes were losing their capacity to inform our understandings of how the world works. (Marcus, 1989: 7-30) In an essay by that same name Marcus called for the development of an ethnography of places and their interconnections rather than a place-focused ethnography of single locales. He argued that “an ethnography of complex connections, itself, becomes the means of producing a narrative that is both micro and macro, and neither one particularly (1989:24).” The shift from place to places, simultaneously and complexly interconnected, by intended and unintended consequences, Marcus argues, requires three methodological moves, namely, (1) the use of multi-locale ethnography, (2) attention to networks of complex connections and to their simultaneous, reciprocal effects, and (3) an effort to contextualize the

Journal

City & Society – Wiley

Published: Jun 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.