Modern Ethnographic Responses to Colonialism: The Case of Post-Genocide Rwanda
by Erin Jessee
“We did not choose to be colonized.” Photo taken from the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre archives.
On Thursday, we’ll examine the legacies of colonial and “post-colonial” discourses for ethnographic research in post-genocide Rwanda. Drawing upon my own oral historical and ethnographic fieldwork encounters since 2007, we’ll discuss the impact of 19th and 20th century colonial discourses on Rwandan society leading up to the 1994 genocide, and their relevance for modern ethnographic research in post-genocide Rwanda. The readings include my 2011 article on “The Limits of Oral History: Ethics and Methodology Amid Highly Politicized Research Settings” and my 2012 fieldnote on “Conducting Fieldwork in Rwanda.” Additional recommended readings (both very brief) include Teju Cole’s “The White-Savior Industrial Complex” and Binyavanga Wainaina’s “How to write about Africa.”
Some possible questions for consideration include: how do past and present colonial discourses influence the practice of modern ethnography? What theoretical, ethical, and methodological considerations must we address in our efforts to work in post-colonial settings, particularly those recently affected by mass violence? And to what end? How do these considerations then shape the ethnographies we produce?
Finally, for those of you who are interested and have the spare time, I highly recommend taking 30 minutes to watch the 1986 mockumentary “Babakiueria.” It’s dated, but its criticisms of ethnography – however satirical – are as relevant today as they were in the past.
The Ethnography of Political Violence 
. The paper “The Limits of Oral History” I thought brought up many issues with oral histories that at first seem quite obvious, but, were necessarily expanded upon. Specifically the idea of ethnographic seduction. This seems rather obvious, the idea that oral histories would be lean in the favor of the narrator, but especially that many of the narrators, I have little doubt as to the accuracy of that for Alexandre, see the ethnographer as an actual historian, someone that can change the way history may view the individual. I am curious as to what Kathleen Blee would say are the dangers of immersing oneself too far into the narratives of their informants. Its difficult to look at Blees’ situation with the KKK and ask how far is ‘safe’ to immerse oneself in those narratives, because they narratives may be so repugnant to her and most people, that there is no danger of being completely seduced by the narrative, but what about ‘trendy’ hate groups, such as Fundamentalist Islamic groups or FARC rebels. At what point does an ethnographer, immersing themselves in these narratives, risk actually beleiving them, and/or supporting that political agenda? What safe guards are there against such things? I would be curious to learn more on that topic.
The other point clarified, is how Alexandres stories effected Jessee as an ethnographer. It seems fairly logical that the stories he told would affect an individiual, but I perhaps would not have understood that they would have so strongly effected deep listening and other ethnographic analysis tools. I enjoyed the ‘unpacking?’ of those concepts.
I hated the first page of “the white saviour complex” and almost enjoyed the second page.
The author was good at admiting his very own prejudices and privilges, On the second page. However, on the first page, I really started thinking “yes, this is why no country would ever want to get involved in Rwanda”. Excuse my language but I have had a theory on Western Military intervention anywhere in the world and it is simply “fu@$ed if you do, fu%$ed if you don’t”. Western nations got involved in Somalia, they definately paid a high price. Noone got involved in Rwanda, along the academic argument of ‘acts of genocide have been committed’ and they also pay a high political price. Rwanda is seen as the worlds failure, yet had the world intervened, it also would have been the worlds failure. Last class someone claimed Afghanistan was a colonialist project. I mean, its laughable. Even states protecting themselves is seen as ‘colonialism’.
So, now, according to this author, even simple humanitarian projects, and a youtube video, have no place, without ‘due diligence’ being done first. On the one hand, I kind of agree. Remove all militray funding, all aid funding, all research funding, and literally just leave nations alone. Zero involvement, except amongst nations that want to be involved with one another.
On the other hand, I feel the author, doesnt actually want due diligence done, the author would like to paint a ‘white imperialist’ devil. I imagine Edward Said would call this “othering” ( except Said beleives only whites are guilty of this, not yellows reds or blacks), but, not the point. The point is, in that very article, the author simply at best misconstrues facts, and worst lies. He says NAFTA destroyed corn producers in Mexico. Well, perhaps, but blaming NAFTA for corn producers plight is so much easier when painting a ‘white devil’ then to look at fellow ‘educated middle class’ environmentalists in America that pushed their government to create subsidies for growing biofuels, ethanol, with corn. This changed land values and created a cash crop. Most research specifically blames these biofuel subsiies for the plight of the Mexican corn grower. So, perhaps the author could do his own “constelational thinking” and stop looking for the same old scapegoat, the idea of ‘white rich elitists’ that crafted NAFTA to keep Mexico poor. I mean, what cliche arguments.
Mockumentary…funny, and exactly what would have happened if aboriginals had had the technology to colonize white folks. They didnt, so, we have what we have.
As Anthropology has based its roots upon colonialism, it will always be correlated to it. Indeed, I remember that, during the last term, I was in the ethnography of Africa course and the professor said that even nowadays, a white male anthropologist will be seen as a descendant to anthropologists during the colonial era.
Hence their suspicion towards them. Let’s think about Evans-Pritchard who wasn’t admitted in the Nuer community because he was sent by the colonial government.
Even today, the imposition of our western culture among certain societies and our NGOs for instance, are the proof that we know better how to handle situations than people in such countries.
The American army, for example, declared war to Irak under the discourse that they wanted to “free people” from oppression. However, everybody knows that they want petroleum and power.
These cultural impositions are perceived as intrusive by people who didn’t ask for help. So, when a white anthropologist, coming from this culture, he will be seen as an intrusive.
So, therefore, an ethnographer, especially if his fieldwork is located in a country recently affected by mass-violence, has to be really careful methodologically and ethically. Indeed, persons he studies are still traumatized by the previous violent events that had happened, like in Rwanda for instance.
I think the best way of avoiding such biases is to let people talk for themselves without drawing conclusions that will be subjective.
I really enjoyed reading the article “The Limits of Oral History: Ethics and Methodology Amid Highly Politicized Research Settings”. Approaching the narrative of research participants as telling a story within telling a story was eye opening. I’m referring here to Alexandre and the way he spoke not only of feeling like both a perpetrator and victim but how narrating this in a specific way worked to the, perhaps, implicit goal of retaining some of his pre-genocide humanity.
The notion of “ethnographic seduction” looked at was also something that stood out for me – in all the lectures, seminars and group discussions I’ve participated in over the last couple of years, this has never been mentioned yet presents a clear and serious problem. I simply never put ethnography and narratives together like that, considering critically the effects they have on each other.
The flow of the article with the revelations at various degrees of self-reflexivity and context was really helpful for me in following the argument, especially as I have near to zero experience with oral histories.
The more this class progresses, the more I feel mired in the questions, dangers, paradoxes and inconsistencies of doing ethnographic field world in the realm of political violence. Maybe that is half the point? I’m not sure. That said I found the methodology behind the research making a lot of sense to me. Beginning with life histories to be able to better contextualize and appreciate other, more thematic discussions, in my mind, has a lot of merit. Though, as Jessee pointed out, in situations of highly politicized settings amid mass violence, there will always be drawbacks and complications.
“To what end?” is a difficult question. As stated in the article, there is a real risk in simply putting forth narratives and becoming a cog in the propaganda machine. I think this is where theory and the deep listening employed during research can be helpful to really consider what is going on, before publishing. The colonial legacy is still deeply embedded in Rwanda (as it is in Canada, etc.), even within the underlying resentment and fear that can be felt alongside talk of unity and peace. More genocidal violence is not necessarily far behind in this context, fuelled still by the same Belgium entrenched categories. Pre-colonialism may not have been exactly the idyllic time it can be portrayed as but this should not retract from acknowledging the very really influence colonialism has left behind – if research participants feel its effects, then it should undoubtedly be felt in research findings. I think one of the best ways to approach working within past and present colonial discourses is to begin with fully acknowledging and appreciated their present day impact, a balancing act with other socio-economic factors (if I can even call them that?).
I saw Babakieria in my first year; in fact it was in my first anthropology class, it as a bit shattering to the naïve mind, to say the least. The questions and criticisms it raises, I think, will always be relevant. It speaks not only to the past of anthropology but the present situation, whatever year we may be in.
How should we act in the shadow of colonialism? Is colonialism over? And as white researchers how can we interact within the existing tensions of neocolonialism.
Reading some of the other comments thus far I think that it would be helpful to define colonialism, which at it’s most basic, according to Merriam-Webster, is the control by one power over a dependent area or people, or a policy advocating or based on such control. I don’t like this definition, it completely ignores the moral component of colonial projects which is such a key component of our contemporary understanding of them. Before turning to the readings, I would just like to respond to another student’s comment that seems to suggest the war in Afghanistan was a means of protecting the nation and not colonialism. I do agree that 9/11 was a shocking attack on American soil, and that it did (in part) prompt warfare as a means of national protection. There is evidence, however, that the plans to invade that part of the world (based upon economic and resource-based needs) had existed years before that September day, and the attack was not so much the causation but rather the catalyst of an already formulated equation. The continued presence of the army, regardless of initial intentions of the US government, is nothing more than pure colonialism. The policy that 29 civilians can die before having to do any paperwork has nothing to do with the protection of America. Restrepo is an excellent documentary on an American army base in the Northern Afghani mountains, and watching Babakueiria, the same cultural incompetency and policy changes based on assumptions run throughout both. Restrepo, of course, is far less lighthearted. Also- that student making the comment about colonial America was me, and to clarify, I said imperialism, not colonialism. Creating unequal relationships seems to be the bread and butter of America.
To the readings- I can’t remember if I’ve mentioned Taussig’s “epistemic murk” yet in this blog, so if I am repeating myself, sorry. I think that on a theoretical level the problem of ethnographic seduction offers a fascinating look into the myths, rumours, and reconstructed and conflicting truths that can be used to justify violence. Taussig uses this theory to discuss the colonial violence and terror enacted on the bodies of Amazonian peoples during the sugar trade- the fear of the Other made visceral through these half-truths and fictions. Again, I think on a purely theoretical level this offers a fascinating look at the multiple narratives coming out of post-genocide Rwanda. However, on the ground I do appreciate the difficulties that pure theorizing can construct. How do you represent a story that could, on the one hand, project the muted voices of a people from the seemingly oppressive silence of their “hegemonic regime,” while on the other you could merely add to this “murk”- fanning the fire or fear and hatred, with potentially very real and horrific outcomes. This seems to link back to the social life of images, or in this case, text. Although it is always possible for portions of your work to be edited and misused, in highly political situations those possibilities become even more tangible. At the most basic level, I think this week is about responsibility. During pre-field work (the paperwork phase it would seem), whilst conducting interviews, when home and considering your data and how to write, while writing, when deciding where and how to disseminate your data. Responsibility in who you vote for, in which NGO you give money to, in which videos you make viral.
On a slightly un-related topic, but based off the discussion of virility and the internet, a friend and I had a long conversation about this awful article being circulated throughout social media at the moment. It’s from some site called SkinnyGossip, and it’s essentially calling one of the Victoria Secret’s models a, and I quote: “marbled fat cow.” This obviously created uproar- feminist websites and bloggers, facebookers from around the world started re-posting this, calling it out as disgusting and sick. Is this appropriate? While (I would hope) most of these people post this article in hopes of highlighting the oppressive self-inflected sexism (the blogger is a woman) and the dangers that these sorts of views hold, how can you know what will happen to that post? How many young girls will see it and think: yes, that is disgusting and I am glad I love myself the way I am? And how many girls will think: if that model is considered fat by this blog (with a lot of followers), then what does that say about me? Is it better to ignore these immoralities, or draw focus to them? But how can we predict what that focus will bring? This is a Hollywood-centered topic, thus the ‘all publicity is good publicity’ thing holds… but how does that translate into the highly political (in a different way) nature of genocide?
The way we tell the stories of our lives, especially the tactics we use to cope with pain, violence and drastic personal and social change is an important area of study in post-conflict scenarios. Anthropology, especially in Africa has been at the heart of the erosure of plural Identities and social formations. There has been a significant push in modern anthropology to reconcile the violent effects of anthropological study in the colonial era with the power dynamics of personal and social histories. The ethical dilemmas today faced min anthropology are the phantoms of the discipline’s participation in projects of colonial exploitation and support for imperialist framings of indigeneity and culutral evolution.
The ethical dilemmas and practical concerns in this week’s readings for fieldwork in post-conflict Rwanda and Bosnia remind me of the manner in which the way we relate our stories is connected to subjective, bodily experiences of history and a sense of the participation in the authoring of a specific view of the past which subverts official, objective renderings. This becomes especially important in scenarios where harm and trauma spark the formation of underground or renegade histories existing in contravention of standard accounts.
Ethical practice is certainly an important part of developing sensitivity to the difficult and dangerous conditions this kind of scholarly work entails. Negotiating closeness and distanc between anthropologist and interviewees especially when talking about work in government disciplinary institutions such as prisons becomes a tricky business where colonial and personal histories oddly converge. How ultimately is anthropology of today to reconcile the burdens of its colonialist past? How for that matter are the Hutu and tsotsi to negotiate the complicated rift in their society? We have seen the limitations of oral history studies in this type of scenario but how far does this kind of work address the burden of both anthropology’s involvement in the Western European colonial enterprise and the burdens of plural historical realities of conflict. I this even necessary? Are the two actually linked in any way?
The article “The Limits of Oral history: Ethics and Methodology Amid Highly Politicized Research Settings” brings up many of the points that we have been addressing in class that relate to ethics and how to deal with research situations. I thought that it was a very good piece (and I’m not just saying that because our teacher wrote it) because it really showed that ethnographers in the field today can withhold to the code of ethics and try as hard as possible to not bring any harm whatsoever to their research participants. The fact that Jessee never gave out any information that could potentially rebound onto the people she worked with even though it ended up hurting her research was one thing that really stuck in my mind. Sometimes research must be withheld if it will harm more than it will hurt. I was also very intrigued by the impact of the interviews with Alexandre. It actually made me think back the whole idea of child soldiers and tactics. What if some interviewees did this on purpose in order to stop researchers from delving too deep? Although I thought the idea that Jessee proposed that he was trying to reason out many actions and keep some of his pre-genocide humanity was also very interesting. Overall I really liked this piece because it sort of gave me hope for ethnographers in the future. I have never before read an article in which the author told of leaving out information to save their participants and there was a very large amount of self reflexivity that I thought was quite neat. The article also brings up many of the issues that relate to doing research in politized settings. When attempting to do research in places like this we must always be aware of every single consequence of our actions. Research can be silenced or ended entirely by these governments if one is not too careful.
The other article “Conducting Fieldwork in Rwanda” was a good piece that showed many ways to get out of our colonialist ways of thinking. Jessee points out many racial and political factors that should be carefully looked at when doing research (such as the naming of peoples and avoiding governmental intervention of research). She brings up several topics of ethics that should be addressed before beginning research such as gaining permission from the ethics board and preparing the necessary documents. When reading this paper I was slightly confused because it seemed to me that these things would be standard criteria for beginning ethnographic research. Although I did not really realize the extent to which the government intervened. I suppose if we wish to remove this colonialist way of thinking entirely there is still a lot of work to do and protocol to get through. Down with colonialism, whooo!
A quote that stuck out for me from “The Limits of Oral History” came from an excerpt from Antonius Robben’s book wherein he stated, regarding intent, that informants may perceive foreign researchers as the “harbingers of history”, which struck me as interesting in the context of oral histories.
The oral history approach to fieldwork seems more holistic than methods that do not emphasize the oral history. While one-on-one interviews are the bread and butter of anthropological research, if one assumes the important details will manifest themselves in written and audio recordings, than part of the story is missing. In “The Limits of Oral History” as well as in class Erin has mentioned the importance of these oral accounts with respect to how, where and when they were told. The behaviour of the subject and the researcher during their interactions (not limited to the interviews themselves) can have a crucial impact on what an informant is willing to talk about, and the manner their account is presented. Alexandre’s polarizing narrative seems to be trying to encompass the full range of judgement on the conflict; he did not want to ignore his role, but minimized his agency in formulating his decisions. Ultimately though, even when we account for the strong emotions associated with acts of political violence, we still have to return to Robben’s point that informants may ascribe a great deal of authority to the researcher, which in Erin’s case was very problematic because her own agency was limited by the interests of the Rwandan government, and at times the mandate of the UN. There is also an assumption on the part of informants that the ‘true history’ lies in what wealthy and powerful states choose to record, showing the subordination of the oral to the textual.
“Conducting fieldwork in Rwanda” for me highlighted to circumscription of agency one can expect when going into the field. Compared to the research situation of early and mid-century anthropologists, those going into the field today must navigate a myriad of procedural and legal hurdles. Our critique of past anthropologists has generally taken the form of addressing what we perceive as mental lapses on their part. The past is innately bigoted to some degree, often without realizing its bigotry, while in the present we are at least lucid thinkers who can recognize bias and influence more readily. However, compared with past work, it seems researchers are burdened with a variety of oversight, wanted and unwanted. To be sure, having an ethical overview of work, planned and in-progress, is important to good field research, but the struggle for anthropologists goes beyond that. One must consider the organization one is working on behalf of, either because they provide funding, or one is a member of said organization. The UN or smaller NGOs not only have overarching, global, goals, but also one’s specific to regions of interest. Zooming in on the local context, Rwandan government officials, prison administrators, and local elites exercise a great deal of power in determining what the foreign researcher can do. The reason all this recognition is important is because when it comes to undue influences on research, it can be easy to blame it on systems of power, which is true enough, but does not reveal specifically where such influence is being exercised. In the context of ongoing studies, by contextualizing system of power in local environments, we can narrow our focus to those aspects of research that have been the most compromised. This does not mean the problem will necessarily be fixed, but some uncertainty regarding the validity of one’s work can be attributed to specific, ideally bounded, sets of circumstances.
-From my particular interest for small details, I wanted to mention the following point: In the articles from Susan Thomson, she described not leaving in the white ex-patriots neighbourhoods, always walking and going to the local markets to buy food, etc. She saw the effects as positive and felt like she gained confidence from the locals. She does not deny that there were rumor going on about her on the field, but they helped building a narrative of her as different/independent from the government.
For E. Jessee living within the community she was researching on was as dangerous for her informants because they could be potentially recognized in any potential publication. I perceive rumors in her article as more negative and restrictive, the impression of always being observed while observing.
– Then concerning “ethic”, as it seems to be an underlying subject to the class:
Is it ethic not to publish results of a research? Judgement can only be let to the person responsible in such a politicised and complicate context. What is the most important: criticize a government policy or protect the informants or oneself or a “peace” period? To me ethic is a balanced judgement of the pro and cons of each situation, the outcomes and the incomes for an immediate and a later future. So the decision of not publishing information and oral history reports now is an ethic decision.
– And finally concerning the relevance of oral history:
I argue that history is also useful to understand people’s life in different contexts. As we saw with the article on anthropology in the Nazi regime, what is interesting is how did people construct their place, their everyday, “why did it happen”? The facts found in the archives are important proofs. But then, having discourses of the anthropologists of the time and their justification and their views, would be so interesting, if provided with a critical understanding of the position and the context by the historian/researcher. For example, if Alexander’s discourse is contextualized and ethnographic seduction is exposed, people should be able to understand it critically. It would be one piece to reproduce a puzzle, a puzzle whose pieces does not always fit together because life is never really a linear narrative. I believe there are multiple truths; everyone lives their own facet of an event, but still an event happen and can be reported by historian for example. It should then be reported with different popular understandings and even though we would like to judge everything, understanding views of different actors is important.
But it is especially important to think about the outcomes: what are going to be the effect in a short and long term? And here if the regimes are strong enough to refute scholars writings or to repress people participating in them, then is it useful? Not really, and the “over time” hope for better conditions to write on events is understandable. But at the same time, what is history done for? And what happen if no one actually stand against dominant narratives that can be wrong? In such a complicate context, what I wrote above on an ethic choice might be the answer to all these questions…
– And then this case reveals that oral history is a negotiation between different agendas, different actors views, and different conceptions. I do think it is important to acknowledge the bias of oral history and of ethnography, but then need to be reconstruct and to clearly outline the potentials and positive sides, otherwise by discrediting the discipline it means crediting, other sciences/forms of knowledge (media, state) as better on, even though it is not the case. What discipline is not a simplification of the reality, a generalization of the variety and so on? But very few of them acknowledge it. As a result, if we discredit the only ones that acknowledge their objectivity, positivist knowledge would be the “winner”, the only visible, which is in my opinion not desirable!
Reading the comments of my fellow students along with the articles, I have really come to despise colonialism. In fact, this class has really made me consider what the world would be like if everyone stayed on their own continent… Although I suppose that’s highly irrelevant and near impossible to imagine.
The article on conducting fieldwork in Rwanda was very informative – it really helped me realize just how much is considered when a researcher goes into the field. Not only do they need to follow the basic ethical codes of whatever organization is funding them, but particular things also need to be considered depending on where the research is taking place. I commend all researchers that have gone into the field to work as ethnographers, as the process is lengthy and seems like a lot of effort.
The second article on oral history was a fascinating read, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have always been interested in oral history, so I found it an interesting topic to look into further. I really liked the conclusion as well, that the overall goal was to “encourage reflection and promote additional dialogue on the necessary limitations imposed by the inclusion of oral history practice when working amid highly politicized research settings.” (14) I also thought it was interesting how our Prof censored herself and protected her informants. After having a number of discussions on what is and isn’t ethical in class, it was inspiring to see that sort of concern. Especially after spending so much time in order to compile the data, it must be hard to not publish it all (or at least I would find it difficult).
Unfortunately I was at the hospital all day today and won’t be able to attend class, but I wish I had been able to – I was looking forward to discussing these articles with the author herself!
My idea of ethnography as been changed by these readings. I always thought an ethnographer must deal many historical and political dynamics, but I never considered that methodology, like oral history, could be affected even after the fieldwork is done. An ethnographer is pulled in many directions when trying to disseminate their findings. They must protect their informants, reach their research goals, and be aware of the political implications for themselves and the population they studied. Their work can end up reinforcing negative rhetoric or becoming so vague it loses significance. The research approval process by the Rwandan government makes it hard to see how an ethnographer could retain enough independence to pursue their fieldwork.