Clifford 1-26 Response

            In this paper the discussion of what is ethnographic writing is discussed. More than that, the various essays bring up different claims on the efficacy and legitimacy of ethnographic writing when rhetoric is involved. Essentially the argument is whether or not the literary aspects added to ethnographic writing dilute and/or embellish the truths of the writing itself. A claim is that literature, like most art, adapts and changes over time and utilizing “flowery” writing as it were, puts ethnographic writing into that same category as fiction. The other side of the story is that ethnographic writing is fiction, to an extent. It is someone’s version of what they believe a culture to be, seen through their own culturally biased eyes. The use of rhetoric and literary techniques simply allows for the broader message to be delivered in a more pleasing package. Some view this as deceptive, while others view this as not just a necessary evil, but necessary as a whole.

            For me I side with the claim that embellishing the writing is a good thing. It allows the words to come across as not dry and boring, but exciting as well as informative. The study of different races and cultures is a fluctuating thing, as races and cultures aren’t just stagnant. Perhaps this style makes the writing less scientific, but from a scope of the grand narrative of culture and civilization, this seems like a proper way to treat this particular form of scientific study. Plus the dry way is just absurdly boring.