Malinowski's New Home
Malinowski and the Development of Fieldwork Methods

"Imagine yourself suddenly set down surrounded by all your gear, alone on a tropical beach close to a native village, while the launch or dinghy which has brought you sails away out of sight… Imagine further that you are a beginner, without previous experience, with nothing to guide you and no one to help you. For the white man is temporarily absent, or else unable or unwilling to waste any of his time on you. This exactly describes my first initiation into field work on the south coast of New Guinea."
(Malinowski 1922, page 4)

Malinowski as the Inventor of Real Fieldwork?

"Malinowski has a strong claim to being the founder of the profession of social anthropology in Britain, for he established its distinctive apprenticeship -- intensive fieldwork in an exotic community."  (Kuper 1973, page 13)

"Quarrels about priority in discovery litter the history of science... The point can always be summarised in the following way: did some more or less obscure figure (Haddon forgive me!) discover or invent something before the well-known scientist who is, unfairly perhaps, considered as the discoverer or inventor? Personally, I would reply to this question "In most cases, no." No, because generally in such cases the unknown inventor has been unable to make any scientific use of his discovery -- which was for this reason hardly a discovery at all... On the other hand, the acknowledged discoverer made his discovery a crucial element in a new theory or method. This seems to me to be the case for fieldwork and Malinowski." (Jorion 1977, page 23)

"Malinowski as 'the chronicler and spokesman of the Trobrianders' gave ethnography a dimension it had hitherto lacked: actuality of relationships and richness of content...He set a standard for intensive field-work and rigorous documentation of theory that few have achieved since... There can be no question of Malinowski' radical influence on field-work methods."  (Kaberry 1957, pages 71, 72, 86)

"In the final analysis, the major credit for discovering the technique of intensive personal fieldwork among a single people must go to Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942). His researches among the Trobriand Islanders during the years 1916-18 yielded a series of epochal volumes which revolutionized the content and practice of anthropology." (Wax 1972, pages 2-3)

With the publication of Argonauts in 1922, Malinowski issued his challenge for scientific fieldwork in anthropology and established himself as the founder of British social anthropology. But was there really a Malinowskian "revolution" in field methods? Can we truly consider Malinowski the inventor (or even discoverer) of scientific fieldwork methodology?

In order to answer these questions, I would like to take a closer look at the following issues:

• Declaring the Charter Myth
  Malinowski as the Inventor of Intensive Fieldwork?

• Historicizing the Achievement
  Situating Malinowski Within British Social Anthropology

• Evaluating the Fieldwork Prescription
  Malinowski's Declared Fieldwork Agenda

• Examining the Facts
  Malinowski's Actual Fieldwork Accomplishments

• Completing the Mythic Transformation?
  Concluding Thoughts on Malinowski and Fieldwork Methods

As Professor William Kelly notes, "We cannot possibly be exhaustive in our efforts [to historicize anthropology], but we can be provocative." My ultimate goal in this project is to locate Malinowski within the larger historical context of the development of British social anthropology. More specifically, I aim to explore Malinowski's claim of being the founder of modern scientific field methods.

In approaching a historiography of the history of anthropology, Professor Kelly identifies our historical points of view as a critical dimension for a serious historicizing of the discipline.  Invoking the presentist/historicist debate, he asks us: "Should we adopt a Whiggish-progressive, presentist perspective towards our past, or a contextual, historicist perspective?"

Clearly, the answer lies somewhere between these two poles, with neither extreme being capable of providing us with the depth of analysis we ought to demand of ourselves as reflective and thoughtful scholars. Perhaps the mark of a good anthropologist is the ability to negotiate between these two poles. James Urry, who staunchly places himself within the historicist camp, also recognizes the multiple layers of analysis:

"Of course, at one level all history is presentist; it is written by people sensitized to modern as well as past concerns, socialised and enculturated in another age to that which they attempt to interpret and explain. All history is also selective. No account could possibly encompass everything that "happened" in a past; "events" are but the rationalization of contingency. History is the way an historian, living in a particular time and place, attempts to make the past, peoples, actions and meanings, intelligible in the language and concerns of their own age. Anthropologists really should have no difficulty understanding this; ethnography does not attempt to "record" the totality of everyday life in a particular context, but is the result of a process of selection by the anthropologist according to the needs of interpretation, explanation and generalization." (1993, pages 1-2)

Site Index
(Table of Contents)

Home Page:  Malinowski and Fieldwork

Anthropology 500b: Class Description

Historicizing the Discipline of Anthropology

Bibliography

Annotation:  Firth 1981

Annotation:  Firth 1989

Annotation:  Jorion 1977

Annotation:  Kuper 1973

Annotation:  Malinowski 1922

Annotation:  Malinowski 1967

Annotation:  Rivers 1912

Annotation:  Rivers 1913

Annotation:  Stocking 1983

Annotation:  Stocking 1995

Annotation:  Urry 1993

Annotation:  Young 1979

Chronology

Notes on the Kula

Malinowski and the Development of Field Methods

The Malinowski Project was last updated on 07 May 1999.

Please send your questions, comments, and suggestions to priscilla.song@aya.yale.edu