This article was downloaded by:

On: 28 February 2011

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Anthropology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713654067

Reflexivity and the Challenges of Ethnographic Film

Nhamo Mhiripiriab
a
University of Natal, South Africa b Midlands State University, Zimbabwe, South Africa

Online publication date: 04 January 2010

To cite this Article Mhiripiri, Nhamo(2003) 'Reflexivity and the Challenges of Ethnographic Film', Visual Anthropology,
16: 1, 73 — 80
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08949460309595100
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08949460309595100

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Visual Anthropology, 16: 73-80, 2003
Copyright 2003 Taylor & Francis Routledge
0894-9468/03 $12.00 + .OO Taylor&Francis Group
DOI: 10.1080/08949460390182836

REVIEW ESSAYS
Reflexivity and the Challenges of Ethnographic
Film
Ruby, Jay. Picturing Culture: Explorations in Film and Anthropology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000; 339 pp. US $44.00
(hard), $19.00 (paper).

For over three decades now, Jay Ruby has championed the rethinking of the
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

theory, production, and ethics of visual anthropology and ethnographic film-

making. He has always challenged both academics and filmmakers to analyze
critically what is and what is not ethnographic film, and has argued how reflex-
ivity can be used to improve the quality and content of this film genre. His latest
book is therefore a timely extensive updating of previously published ideas on the
field. He has been consistent in attempting to theorize the anthropology of visual
communication as well as to give the broad field the recognition it deserves in
academia. My reading of Ruby is therefore in terms of the popularization of the
notion and practice of reflexivity and its application to specific films. It is also
pertinent to see how filmmakers have taken up reflexivity.
Picturing Culture: Explorations in Film and Anthuopology reinvigorates Ruby’s
tireless work and practical and theoretical insights on the notion of reflexivity. At
the epistemological level the book does much to periodize or historicize the
anthropology of visual communication, and critically distinguish inherent struc-
tural and methodological mutations of knowledge during the twentieth century.
While it is undeniable that the book represents Ruby’s projection of subjective
personal consciousness, his insights nevertheless lend the field a necessary nor-
mative perspective on its theories, practice, and history within an identifiable
paradigmatic cultural model. Ruby’s effort is ultimately a commendable effort to
give the human science of visual anthropology a scheme or order of things within
the overall field of discursive events [Faubion 1998: 247-2971.
Ruby is not alone in the endeavor to articulate theoretical principles of visual
anthropology. He openly acknowledges the influence of Johannes Fabian in his
formulation of the principle of reflexivity. A wider reading of the epistemological
developments of the concept also shows us that other writers, such as Keyan
Tomaselli, do engage with it in both film production and academic writing and
semiotic interpretation [Tomaselli 19961. Heider has also tried to deal with the
history, theory, and practice of ethnographic film [1976].

73
 74 Revieui Essays

Indeed, Picturing Cultuve places visual anthropology and ethnographic films

within a historic epistemological context that stretches from the early twentieth
century till the present. The book also suggests possible future developments for
documentary. In terms of theory and its application, Ruby insists that ethno-
graphic film should communicate sophisticated anthropological knowledge that is
informed by analytical critical theory. First, such films ought to be treated with the
same seriousness conferred on written papers in anthropological academia. Sec-
ondly, trained anthropologists and theoreticians of ethnographic film ought to be
ethnographic filmmakers in order for the genre to become part of mainstream
cultural anthropology. Ruby also argues that ethnographic filmmakers should
generate a set of critical standards analogous to those for written ethnographies, so
that the former attain the same academic status as the latter. Notwithstanding
these assertions, Ruby is fully aware of the problems of his theoretical and
methodological assertions of restricting ethnographic film to films produced by or
in association with anthropologists, since some scholars would argue that all film
is ethnographic [Heider 1976; Ruby 1975 and in this text].
Whilst ostensibly concentrating on the concept and application of reflexivity in
image making, this book has a persistent focus on the concept of ”the Other” or
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

”Othering” in all its chapters, and on how this has specific implications on the
democratization of culture, and on the study and production of anthropological
materials. It is apparent that whatever Ruby says is rooted within specific cultural
contexts. For him, culture is created, maintained, and modified through social acts
of communication. He accepts the interpretive turn in anthropology that is var-
iously conceived as ”dramatological,” “secular ritual,” “performance,” or ”social
drama” 1242-2471.
Ruby challenges Clifford Geertz who claims, ”Most ethnography is in fact to be
found in books and articles, rather than film.” Instead, Ruby believes that the
”central issue for the ethnographic filmmaker is to be able to find culture in
filmable behavior and then to generalize from the specific, to make concrete the
abstract, and yet to retain the humanity and individuality of those portrayed while
still making a statement about culture” [2431.
An understanding of the political economy of the ethnographic film infra-
structure is crucial too if one is to comprehend fully the intricate principles of
reflexivity. For instance, some new technologies have arguably decentralized and
democratized visual anthropology and ethnographic film. While early cameras
were bulky and extremely difficult to use in remote areas, modern portable
cameras give researchers easy access to people. The new easily usable instruments,
however, do not immediately change the conduct of research, as some anthro-
pologists fail to adjust with time or merely manipulate conditions wrongly. Ruby
argues that the production and reception of ethnographic film operate within a
series of academic and commercial structures, and these socioeconomic entities
encourage certain developments and discourage others, hence they ought to be
explored [ 181.
Nonetheless, his is a relentless call that anthropologists ought to reveal, sys-
tematically and vigorously, both themselves as individual practitioners, and their
methods of accumulating data, processing it, and transmitting the final product.
Again, they ought to reflect on how the medium through which they transmit their
 Review Essays 75

work predisposes readers and viewers to construct a meaning of the work in certain
ways. The anthropologist or ethnographer must expose both himself as producer
and the process that he has used in the construction of anthropological cultural
products such as photographs, books, and films. From this exposure an audience,
through the process of reflexivity, will raise its own critical awareness by, in turn,
”being publicly, explicitly, and openly self-aware and reflexive” [Ruby 2000: 1521.
Obviously, the idea of reflexivity has been developed from Fabian who argues
that an understanding of the symbolic system and the various possible ways of
semiotic interpretation of cultural products needs an exposure of the following:
PRODUCER-PROCESS-PRODUCT [Ruby 19771. Ruby goes a step further to add
that in the postmodern world people no longer trust producers since objectivity is
contestable, hence the reader/viewer’s construction of meaning is significant-
reflexivity becomes important for the audience in the reception and meaning-
making process. Reflexivity, he says, is not just an expression of self-awareness in
production and product transmission, but it is also the consciousness of being
conscious. It is a heightened self-awareness based on the ability to know one’s role
and functions as ethnographer or anthropologist and consciously to expose that to
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

both subjects of study and the potential audiences. This is done through incor-
porating elements of the self and the background and process of production into
the final product. In Ruby’s sense, reflexivity is certainly far from etymologically
unconscious and instinctive. On the contrary, it is a postmodern flexibility that
shatters old epistemological spaces in order to recreate. In enunciating the concept,
Ruby draws examples from Flaherty, Marshall, Mead, Gardner, and other pro-
minent film producers in the visual anthropological and ethnographic mode. He
charges provocatively that an anthropological cinema can be born only out of an
ultimate exposure that enables the audience to identify the cinematic illusion of
verisimilitude as nothing more than the illusion it is [2781.
Ruby’s belief in reflexivity as a methodological, theoretical and ethical process
makes him openly declare that he is partisan, and advocates the democratization
of anthropology and ethnography through their systematic use. Thus he declares
without qualms, ”It should be obvious by now that I am partisan. I strongly
believe that all serious filmmakers and anthropologists have ethical, aesthetic, and
scholarly obligations to be reflexive and self-critical about their work. I would, in
fact, expand that mandate to include any scholar or intellectual or artist with a
serious intent” [ 1531,
Individual visual anthropologists and filmmakers have employed reflexivity
wittingly or unwittingly with varying degrees of success. It may sound para-
doxical that reflexivity can be employed unconsciously as in ”accidental reflex-
ivity.” This happens in unplanned shots that are out of focus, and/or in shots
where the mike and/or soundperson appear occur in the film. These expose the
fact that the film is a construction, where production and processing are not
entirely premeditated and controlled [Ruby 1977: 91. Notable examples are frames
in Flaherty’s Nunook of the North where images of legs appear on the topmost part
while the film proceeds in the lower section. Otherwise reflexivity in order to
make the audience realize moving images are constructs that may even carry
preferred readings, must usually be a self-conscious act if it is used at all in films.
However, Flaherty employed written reflexivity in his writing on how he made
 76 Review Essays

the film, revealing in the process that he staged some scenes [Rotha and Wright
19801. Ruby quotes from Flaherty’s ”An Early Account of the Film” to illustrate
this deliberate reflexivity:
“Suppose we go,” said I, ”do you know that you and your men may have to give up
making a kill, if it interferes with my film? Will you remember that it is the picture of
you hunting the ivuik (walrus) that I want and not their meat?” “Yes, yes, the aggie
(movie) will come first,” earnestly he (Nanook) assured me. ”Not a man will stir, not a har-
poon will be thrown until you give the sign. It is my word.” We shook hands and agreed to
start the next day. 1671

This was a conversation between Flaherty and Nanook in preparation for the
filming of the walrus hunt that ultimately became an episode in the film.
Deliberate reflexivity is found in films such as I am CliffordAbrahams, and This is
Grahamstown (hereafter referred to as CliffordAbrahams [Hayman 19841) and N!ai-
the Story ofa !Kung Woman (hereafter to be referred to as N!ai [Marshall 19801).
Tomaselli reveals that the making of Clifford Abrahams was inspired by the
reflexive techniques used in Ash’s The Ax Fight [Tomaselli 1996: 2091. Like Ruby,
Hayman 119861 challenges the dominant idea of objectivity and exposes the
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

audience to the making of the documentary about Clifford Abrahams, a beggar,

casual worker, and alcoholic. As the narrator, Hayman stays in the documentary’s
picture asking Clifford many questions. This is contrary to the traditional methods
of ethnographic filming where the filmmaker stayed invisible and simply recorded
actualities without deliberate intervention. Hayman explained why he opted to
appear in his own film: ”Obviously what I saw had an effect on me. Makers of
orthodox documentaries pretend the scenes they film have no effect on them-
and that they have no effect on their subjects. There is an element of pretence in
this. But no film is free from bias-the only way to avoid pretence is to build the
bias in and reveal it” [Fairbairn 19861. Hayman acknowledges that the making of
documentaries is a process which enable the self-discovery and self-realization of
the anthropologist or ethnographer. The positions of viewer, viewing, and the
viewed become relative and, as Feldman adroitly notes, “subjects become
creators. . . and creators become subjects” [Feldman 1977: 231.
The participatory approach embodied in Clifford Abrahams where Clifford and
Hayman even edit footage together redefines in an existentialist way who or what
is the subject. If the persona of the subject has the capacity to shift between the
orthodox viewer and the viewed this means there is much more honesty and truth
in the creation of the cultural product. For instance, in Clifford Abrahams at one
time we hear Hayman the narrator wonder whether or not what he had just been
told by Clifford is real or false. Positions have shifted and Hayman is now a
subject in a learning process, instead of passively recording data. Indeed, to
audiences of visual anthropology he becomes an ”object” of study as well. He is
now part of that qualitative data that can be examined and assessed. In short, this
film is ”subject-generated” and, as Feldman observes, it also seems to attest to the
contention that ”the degree of truth (or integrity) in a work is directly proportional
to the amount of subject participation in its creation” [Feldman 1977: 231. Ruby
criticizes any attempts at keeping the ethnographic or anthropological researcher
neutral and ”detached.” Indeed, he agrees with Jean Rouch who said, ” . . .[Tlhe
 Review Essays 77

entire act of filming transforms everyone involved, including the crew” [2471. He
also assesses the ethical and power implications embedded in situations where the
researcher purports to be unbiased and neutral. Ruby observes:
The problem is that the procedures developed to ensure the neutrality of the observer,
and the control necessary for this type of research, were evolved in a science of sub-
ject/object relations, and not an anthropological science of subject/subject relations. . . It
is simply not the case that one can make another human being into an object of study in
the same way that one can control animals or inanimate objects. 11621

The inherent perspective is that there must be a democratization of the whole

research process, and it is morally improper to deny people equality in partici-
pation. Feldman has also tried to explain how certain assumed roles in research
entail specific unequal power relations and permit particular decisions to be made
pertaining to the production or projection of collected data.
The creation of such filmic roles necessitated decisions about the powers and
freedoms of the individuals concerned. It is my contention that these decisions have
always and will always be made. It is a further contention that the path to more
honest filmmaking is not to deny the inevitability of these power structures but rather
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

to work on strategies that will expose them to all concerned [Feldman 1977 361.
Ruby is quite aware of the criticism that to reveal the producer and process of
creation in the overall anthropological product can be viewed by others as ”nar-
cissistic, overly personal, subjective, and even unscientific” [Ruby 2000: 1561. Such
critics are usually empiricist and positivist and believe that reality in the social
sciences can be objective and probably quantifiable. They tend to ignore that reality
and objectivity are contestable and far from homogeneous and simplistic.
According to Tomaselli this is the problem of Western epistemology, which accepts
philosophical dualities of subject/object, mind/matter, rational/irrational[1996: 231.
It is arguable, though, that if the revelations necessary for reflexivity are
excessive this may, indeed, confuse issues and undermine the purpose of
anthropological and ethnographic films. It seems that it is left to the discretion of
the producer to judge how much of the reflexivity is relevant and crucial for a
specific project. Although Ruby may try to dismiss the counter-productive
potential of positivism, it remains pertinent that at least some ”objectivity” be
retained as a counter to the probable methodological nihilism or anarchism of
cultural relativism. Again, a certain extremism of purpose is discernible in films
where stuntmen exhibit their techniques through reflexivity, even though films
like Stuntman cannot qualify to be ethnographic.
Ruby rethinks the orthodox conception of science. He observes that the domi-
nant view is that science is synonymous with quantitative analyses that employ an
experimental model in which variables can be controlled. He has already stated a
partisan position by claiming that the ”documentary film-makers have a social
obligation to not be objective,” since such a concept is inappropriately borrowed
from the natural sciences but has little support in the social sciences [Ruby 1977:
31. He expounds this contention in Picfuving Cultuve as follows:

One is left with a choice: either [to] characterize anthropology as something other than a
science or define science in such a way as to include qualitatively derived knowledge and
 78 Review Essays

accept that some science is an interpretative rather than an “objective” endeavor. I choose to
see anthropology as a social science that employs the scientific method but is also part of the
humanities.. . [1571

He locates anthropology and ethnography within social science, hence the practi-
tioners are obliged to reveal systematically the integrated methods they use and any
other factors that might affect the outcome of their research. The interpretive potential
of the social sciences also has implications for audience reception, since meaning is
constructed. Reception and the interpretation of anthropological film have been
largely ignored over the years, and there is a conspicuous sparseness of relevant
literature on this and on the methodologies used to assess audiences. Nevertheless,
media and cultural studies have endeavored to conduct audience or reception stu-
dies, and to show that meaning from the same text can never be homogeneous
among different individuals or groups. It may be that the immediate task is ”to open
the black box hiding the specific social-psychologicalprocesses behind and below the
general process of reception” [Jensen and Rosengren 1990: 2321.
Ruby perceives culture as constructed sign events that provoke interpretive
possibilities from their receivers. Texts may carry preferred meanings determined
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

by the signs, symbols, and codes that have been selected (or left out) by their
producers. Selectivity is paramount in the construction of meaning and may
determine how texts are received and interpreted. Ruby says receivers infer what
they believe was implied by a signmaker, although the maker’s implication will
not always be inferred correctly. This model is important as a way of assessing
how culture is communicated by visible and pictorial means and by the making
and interpretation of ethnographic films [242-2431.
It would also be pertinent to incorporate postfilming material that assesses how
the studied communities or individuals coped with life afterwards. This is a
crucial aspect of reflexivity that is captured in N!ai. N!ai certainly enjoys the
publicity and material benefits that come along with giving ”performances” to
researchers and tourists who take her photographs ”because [she is] beautiful,” as
she says [Marshall 19801. However, she suffers socially since her community
thinks that she is stingy and no longer wants to share her newfound ”wealth”
with the rest. There is also familial tension arising from her payments. In Clifford
Abraham this type of reflexivity is not revealed, but Cliffy certainly became a
popular figure in the neighborhood after the film, and more people tried to talk to
him or just to understand his predicament. On the negative side, though, Clifford
is beaten up by some youths who accuse him of ”selling-out.”
Ruby takes cognizance of the political economy and other ethical implications of
the visual anthropology ”industry,” but overlooks the contentious issue of copy-
right or the ownership of intellectual property rights. His chapter on ethics
highlights the contradictions that arise when an ordinary person is suddenly
thrust before the public gaze. He asks how one balances the public’s right to be
informed with the individual’s right to privacy. For him the producer has a moral
obligation to his or her subjects that also ought to be balanced against his moral or
contractual obligations to the institutions that provided the funds for the work,
that is, “paying the piper.” There is also the producer’s moral obligation to the
intended audience [140-1411.
 Review Essays 79

This book is a conscious endeavor to theorize and uplift the status of visual
anthropological communication as well as to give it a distinctive discursive and
epistemological standing within the human sciences.
The book has its weak points, however, although these may not really distract
from the overall endeavor and achievement. First, there is a vagueness in defining
"anthropology" and "ethnography," a problem that by extension creeps into the
perennial problem of "what is ethnographic film?" and "what is anthropological
film?" Secondly, there is no conclusive distinction between the "so-called" and
"real" ethnographic films.
Pacho Lane notes that Ruby uses the terms "ethnography" and "ethnology"
interchangeably in common parlance, yet etymologically "the discipline of social
anthropology is Ethnology-from Greek, the "study of peoples"-while the
product of the study is Ethnography-from Greek, "writing about peoples" "
[letter to Tomaselli 20001.
Picturing Culture is in parts witty and provocative, and makes a conscious call
for debate, especially on the theory and practice of visual anthropology and eth-
nographic film. Perhaps it is time that new controversies generate interest among
practitioners and scholars, in order to stimulate an energetic outpouring of writ-
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

ten, photographic, and filmic ethnographies. Are untrained filmmakers without

the anthropological theoretical and methodological tools, for instance, comfortable
with their exclusion by Ruby as proper ethnographic filmmakers? Isn't Ruby
placing visual anthropology in a theoretical and practical esoteric straitjacket by
insisting on certain standards at a time when other fields are opening up theory
and methodology? Is Ruby's call for a genuine "anthropological cinema" feasible
or possible, or is it nothing but a chimerical "fantasy"; as he unabashedly calls it?
All these, and many more, are questions seeking answers, and Ruby should be
commended for reminding scholars within the field that there is need to cultivate
continuously its identify, more so because visual anthropology and ethnography
are relatively quite young and in need of a discursive epistemology.
The book is suitable for tertiary studies in general anthropology, media studies
and film studies.

REFERENCES

Fairbairn, J.
1986 Life on the other side of festive Grahamstown. In A Way of Seeing ''I
am Clifford Abraham and this is Grahamstown." Lynette Steenveld, ed.
Grahamstown: Rhodes University, Department of Journalism and
Media Studies.
Faubion, James D., ed.
1998 Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology: Essential Works of Foucault. New York:
The New Press.
Feldman, S.
1977 Viewer, Viewing, Viewed: A Critique of Subject-Generated Documentary.
Journal of the University Film Association, 29(4): 23-36.
 80 Review Essays

Hayman, G.
1986 Introduction. In A Way of Seeing " I am Clifford Abrahams and this is Gra-
hamstown." Lynette Steenveld, ed. Grahamstown: Rhodes University,
Department of Journalism and Media Studies.
Heider, Karl
1976 Ethnographic Film. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Jensen, K.B., and K.E. Rosengren
1990 Five Traditions in Search of the Audience. European Journal of Commu-
nication, Volume 5. London: Sage.
Lane, Pacho
2000 [Letter.] Website: http://www.docfilm.com
Rotha, Paul, and Basil Wright
1980 Nanook and the North. Studies in Visual Communication, 6(2): 32-60.
Ruby, Jay
1975 Is an Ethnographic Film a Filmic Ethnography? Studies in the Anthro-
pology of Visual Communication, 2(2):104-111.
1977 The Image Mirrored: Reflexivity and the Documentary Film. Journal of the
Downloaded At: 19:48 28 February 2011

University Film Association, 29(1): 3-11.

2000 Pictuving Culture: Explorations in Film and Anthropology. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Steenweld, Linda n.d.
A Way of Seeing "I am Clifford Abrahams, and This is Grahamstown." Gra-
hamstown: Rhodes University, Department of Journalism and Media
Studies.
Tomaselli, Keyan G.
1996 Appropriating Images: The Semiotics of Visual Representation. H~jbjerg:
Intervention Press.

FILMOGRAPHY

Flaherty, Robert J.
1922 Nanook of the North. Paris: Revillon Freres; 55 mins.
Hayman, G.
1984 I am Clifford Abrahams, and This is Grahamstowiz. Grahamstown: Rhodes
University; 70 mins.
Marshall, John
1980 N a i : The Story of a !Kung Woman. Watertown: Documentary Educational
Resources; 59 mins.
Nhamo Mhiripiri
Graduate Programme in Cultural and Media Studies
University of Natal
Durban 4014
South Africa

Media Lecturer
Midlands State University
Zimbabwe, South Africa