I N T R O D U C T I O N
Upon first getting a feel of the virtual folio on my finger tips, I instinctively glanced over the cover art. I found there the picture of a woman who would no doubt be the subject of the discourse. I could not help but approach the image with side comments concerning stereotype. Shostak’s intellectual roots were founded in Literature, and this may be deducible to some -- One thing I’ve learned from observation in many classes I’ve sat in is that details of presentation in any of these forms bear the apparent to even the slightest tint of the creator’s affiliations even if he or she tries to mask them under a theme to be discussed. Shostak is indeed a Literature major not just because I have some familiarity with her curriculum vitae but through seeing that she had chosen an artwork which produced a direct apparent link to her subject --- an African-Ethnic layout, theme and font, not to mention color schemes which screams ‘Africa!’ to some extent. Many authors have attempted to add a creative authenticity to their work through satisfying the visual appetite. Not that I’m entirely against the choice of her manner of presentation, but it would have been much more impressive if Shostak had thought more outside the box on such a design. It would have done justice to the personality of Nisa as a !Kung woman who differed among those of her time. This I can say boldly, but all in the name of
a good flowing argument, I shall discuss that in full later.
a good flowing argument, I shall discuss that in full later.
NISA was the first ethnography typically assigned for rudimentary level reading, and I could clearly understand why. The meta-narrative provides an implied advice. One reason why Shostak’s work is regarded as one of the anthropological classics or must reads is that it indirectly teaches the ethics of the conduct of research and approach of the subjects. Shostak posed and addressed in the introduction the questions that every ethnographer mulls over. With the consciousness that she wasn’t just observing a culture, her dilemma was looking at how she is contributing to the culture negatively if she yields in to the pressure – would it be advisable that she give respondents something in exchange for information? This reinforces the idea of an interviewed people which would consider themselves abused if not paid in some way, which would lead to their refusal at participation without compensation for time and efforts.
The idea of the anthropologist visiting a certain peoples for study is not something new for the !Kung. In fact, their reaction to observers is, I interpreted, as impressive to some extent. If permitted to ruminate, readers would remember the scene in the introduction where Kxoma and Tuma recommended that the Shostaks would set up camp where the Howells and other anthropologists were situated during the previous four years. This suggestion can be examined in three ways:
(1) An extension beyond Blasco and Wardle’s concept of ethnography as
discourse between anthropologist past argumentical sense and into
an intimate connection. The Shostaks have their minds and hearts set
on contributing to the yet growing body of knowledge on the !Kung,
and so as to be able to have similar or better luck situate themselves
in a studious historical venue.
(2) On the part of the !Kung, it could have meant an illustration of
comfort or caution of the presence of other people.
3) The !Kung may also have had a sense of geopolitical orientations
where the setting up
of camp at a location previously occupied by anthropologists also
of camp at a location previously occupied by anthropologists also
denotes the visit of another anthropologist who bears the promise of
stuff
The question these answers address has to do with the question of space in terms of what and whose interest it serves. The latter two are interpreted as a strategy that is based on classical conditioning as the !Kung people have been, after all, aloof of the existence of others, or so it had been said.
This discussion of NISA is double tiered: First, to be able to determine why the focus is on the subject with the said name. Secondly, to examine the elements of the themes and relate them to anthropological theories when applicable. Shostak may not have been an anthropologist, but upon stepping into anthropological territory, she has had some unstated but implied inclinations.
WHO IS NISA?
Nisa may perhaps be considered as an intellectual in her time and place, having exhibited five of Gardner’s ranges of intelligence. Of primary attention is her Linguistic intelligence with her competency in syntax, semantics, and oral communication. It was her key skill that is storytelling had caught the attention of Shostak. Storytelling has been a part of humanity since people were able to communicate and respond to the basic biological urge to explain, educate, and enlighten. But very few are gifted in this ability to successfully convey.
Stories pass on historical, cultural, and moral information, and provide an escape and relief from the everyday struggle to survive [Brix: 2010]. But Nisa’s story is in the non-traditional form of storytelling. In the assumption of the role as storyteller, she may have known that the series of interviews were intended for use in a study, but she addresses the task with this storyteller instinct that is to answer the impulse to teach and impart values and wisdom. This is interpreted to be the case since she has adopted Shostak as her niece, and read from that winning line I am an old woman and know about things, because whenever I hear people talking, I listen [Ch.03, p.100].
The subject matter of her stories comprise of her illustrations of intrapersonal intelligence with an emphasis of how she is aware of her emotions and the implications of showing them in the interactions of being a !Kung woman (a sense of interpersonal intelligence). The !Kung permit the varied expressions of these.
Ruminating on the idea of Nisa’s hunger, it was tempting to adapt the French vista, Nisa’s appetite for food is equated with her appetite for life. Her fondness of bush food and springhare and other natural goodies may debatably be an illustration of naturalistic intelligence to some extent. This is paired with her life-long sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about !Kung female and male relations and existence. To entertain inquiries that pose what it is to be. This enables her to become resilient. It is amusing to note how her resilience manifests in the variations of a perennial line We lived and lived [ch. 03, 06]; We just continued to live [ch.09, 10, 12]; and we just lived on [ch. 03]; and just living [ch. 03, 05,15]; we just lived, lived, and
lived [ch.03]; after that, we just lived… [ch.06]
lived [ch.03]; after that, we just lived… [ch.06]
In some basic comparison with her companions, Nisa is considered to be a more feisty one, as she exercises her agency whenever she pleases. The question is really on whether this demonstration is successful or not. On the notion of success, it doesn’t solely have to do with the accomplishment of the short-term objective (as in the case of ch. 06 Nisa running away as a repetitive protest to the pre and the existing union with Tashay) but also the connection the act has to the main goal (for instance to terminate the marriage with Tashay). Readers will learn how this exercise of agency is most of the times something that is half done. A successful agency is the accomplishment of the short-term objective and the main goal (exemplified in the history of the terminated union with Besa).
No comments:
Post a Comment