民族志是，民族志不是
ETHNOGRAPHY IS, ETHNOGRAPHY AIN'T
2015年04月17日 21:35 来源：原创翻译 作者：JOHN L. JACKSON JR.著 孔敬
来源：《文化人类学》，第27卷，第3期，2012年8月，“写文化”，p837-855.（Cultural Anthropology , Vol. 27, No. 3, "Writing Culture" at 25 (AUGUST 2012) , pp. 480-497）
出版：威利代表美国人类学会出版 (Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association)
网址：
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23252408
摘要： “数字”（digital），用其主要的隐喻概念，即卡拉•基林（Kara Keeling）关于“数字人文”（digital humanism）中的那个术语版本，本文认为关于“数字化”（digitality）不同定义的多元化帮助我们考虑它在民族志项目中的重新定义。从讨论马龙•里格斯（Marlon Riggs）关于自己死亡的电影描述（作为一种讨论非数字化的方法）到现在广播电视中采用数字技术播放的设备，这篇文章探讨了由数字媒体无所不在所决定的社会关系改变（和存在现实）对于民族志研究和写作可能意味着什么？以非洲耶路撒冷希伯来以色列人作为主要民族志研究主题，本文提出认真考虑数字化特征，在后写文化时代（in a post–Writing Culture moment），重新定义民族志是什么，不是什么。
关键词：数字化；移民社群；黑人；民族志；媒体人类学
ABSTRACT：Using a notion of "the digital" as one of its master metaphors, a version of the term reliant on Kara Keeling's discussion of "digital humanism", this piece argues that there is something about the nonlinearities defining digitality's difference that might help us to think about recalibrations in the ethnographic project itself. From a discussion of Marlon Riggs's filmic depiction of his own death (as one way to talk about the nondigital) to a machine that uses digital technology to play with temporality in broadcast television, this article wants to ask what the changing social relations (and existential realities) predicated on the ubiquity of digital media might mean for ethnographic research and writing today. With the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem as central ethnographic subjects, I argue that taking digitality seriously means redefining some of what ethnography is and ain't in a post–Writing Culture moment.
KEY WORDS: digitality; diaspora; blackness; ethnography; media anthropology
民族志是，民族志不是-中国社会科学网
http://www.cssn.cn/mzx/xspj/201504/t20150417_1591452.shtml
