Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s a lot of short stories collected by Henry Schwarz in this 1974 collection, though he didn’t translate them himself.
Also Worldcat should be a good reference for more edited collections.
These stories depict–and in doing so, promote–a vision of modernity as being necessarily secular and materialistic. Faith in science is depicted as being unlimited in its power to generate progress. This is, of course, a key theme in “Something Wonderful”, where the feeling of religious ecstasy is revealed to be the products of modern technology, but the old man in “The Young Couple” spells out the social benefits of secularization, namely that young people can freely choose their paths and loves without religious constraints.
A related theme to secularization is the taming of nature. The protagonists of “Dark Cliffs” and “The Young Couple” are primarily urban dwellers; while the countryside is still an important aspect of their lives–after all, they still know how to ride–they aren’t all that familiar with the landscapes, directions, or weather patterns. As well, I noticed that the stories increasingly used fewer metaphors referring to nature over time, from nature being central in both analogizing the wondrousness, and actual dissemination, of the Party’s message in “Something Wonderful”, to its virtual absence in “The Young Couple” where fire and poplar are the only naturalistic metaphors and refers only to love). That said, in “Dark Cliffs”, the bad weather and dangerous landscape threatens this kind of modern rationality, bringing a kind of Gothic irrationality (as someone in the class mentioned).
As nature recedes into background for these characters, there’s also a growing importance of technology and modern systems of organization in making life happen. Whereas the entire inciting incident of “Something Wonderful” is technological (i.e. airplanes), arguably the events in “The Young Couple”–the couple encountering one another, corresponding, and meeting up through a comedy of errors–could never have been possible without modern technological and logistical infrastructure of a modern state: the postal system, transportation networks, mass communications. This urban environment also exacerbates a sense of alienation. “The Young Couple” even presents no fewer than two prominent examples of alienation: while the couple in “The Young Couple” could even meet and fall in love was facilitated by a sense of alienation, social atomization, and possibility in anonymous cities, these things also brings about the kind of heightened suspicion and paranoia as exhibited by the neighbour/courier towards Jaltsan’s intentions and even his own wife. Urban anonymity also drives the plot for “Dark Cliffs” as the narrator sought to relocate a lost ex, but not even venturing back to the rural environment or life could bring her back.
In sum, I think modernity in these stories comes from their focus on slice of life stories of ordinary people in urban settings, rather than on gods and kings as one might expect in traditional epics and dramas. But not unambiguously, for even “Dark Cliffs” could be using a touch of irony to make fun of this tendency towards the mundane (While promising that “Great men seek adventure, thus you came to meet me here at Dark Cliffs”, the story ends by showing that it was all a dream).
I’ll need some more time to review the content of what the interviewees have talked about (based on the second set of prompt questions on “climate change themes”), but here are my preliminary thoughts on the interview structure and approaches.
1. Do you have anything to add about what makes a good semi-structured interview?
I thought that both interviews were extremely insightful, not only for the informational content in what the informants had to say, but also as examples of highly economical semi-structured interviewing. Both interviews featured similar themes and questions that allow for comparisons (dzuds, livestock, government/organizational assistance, COVID impacts). But at the same time, there was room to follow up on questions where the two sets of interviewees’ experiences diverged. For instance, Batbuyan clearly found the second interviewee’s mention of preparing preserved vegetables for livestock interesting enough that he asked impromptu follow-up questions. I also noticed that he spent more time asking the couple about the size and variety of their livestock than with the second interviewee, perhaps because the couple are active pastoralists while the second man seemed to have done herding part time.
2. What do you think the interviewer, Batbuyan, does well in these interviews?
I thought Batbuyan was very methodical, and took a no-nonsense approach that made the most use of the short 20-30 min time he had with the interviewees by cutting to the chase about asking them about specific examples of changes they experienced in their years of herding. While this focused approach may potentially preclude other stray examples that the interviewees might bring up on their own, it does well to focus their attention into describing the interviewer’s chosen phenomena at a greater depth in shorter amounts of time. That said, I would’ve liked more information about the interviewees’ backgrounds and what “normal” or “ideal” times would’ve looked like to them.
In terms of Batbuyan’s background, I noticed that his questions look primarily at the material impact of climate change conditions on the behaviour of nomads, as well as their adaptational strategies (if any). He draws out very practical information about observable changes in the landscape and weather patterns, almost as if he’s gathering intelligence on what changed in the interviewees’ localities and trying to sound out how these localities may have responded to their particular conditions. As a human geographer, his focus was clearly on the changing relationship between humans and their surroundings, mediated by changing conditions of the landscape they inhabit in. As such, I do notice that he didn’t seem particularly interested in things like, for instance, the herders’ religious or political beliefs, nor give too much attention to the structures of governance outside of whether herders received aid from them in climate-related crises.
3. Do you have any questions or concerns about the interview processes?
I do have some questions about the way Batbuyan approached his interviews.
First, I mentioned that Batbuyan cut to the chase with asking about specific examples of climate changes that affect herders the most. How did he choose the order of which sorts of phenomena to ask first to last? Why does Batbuyan start with dzuds first, and then move outward to more broad topics until ending with asking about the impact of COVID?
As well, I would’ve expected that interviews might start from the broadest topics to break the ice and lay out the contextual groundwork before narrowing down to specificities, like how proximate incidents of climate change impacted the way interviewees lived their lives. But, in the first interview, Batbuyan only asked the interviewees about the context of their livestock inventory very late into the interview (and not at all with the second interviewee). Would it make more sense to start with asking the interviewees to start by laying out what resources they have before diving deeper into how these are affected by climate change?
Finally, I do have a potential concern about the phrasing of questions. In his questions, Batbuyan makes no illusions that these changes were due to climate change, a fact he brings up repeatedly and often before asking his questions. I wonder whether this might result in a bit of a leading question situation, where the informants are nudged towards thinking that they should tailor their questions to fit climate change. After all, once you bring up climate change as “a hot topic” before asking how things changed since childhood and “why do you think such changes are occurring”, what else can interviewees say but something related to the climate? I think this could also remove the space for examining any potential non-materialistic epistemological or ontological viewpoints herders might have regarding their situation, as well as room for researchers to discern what knowledge or imaginaries about climate change herders have. What if, for instance, that the herders didn’t think to connect their experiences to what scientists have been saying about climate change (as opposed to Batbuyan, who takes the herders’ knowledge of climate change’s existence for granted)? In my mind, that would also be important information to assess out.
On the point of participant observations vs photo ops, an interesting consideration here would be to what extent these excursions were directly the results of, or otherwise influenced by, the documentary filmmakers’ presence in Crate’s life and work. If Crate were left to her own devices without being tailed by a documentary team, how likely would she have went to the glacier? But of course going to the glacier would provide ample–and quite spectacular–visual interest for a film. Indeed, how much of Crate’s interviews, excursions, or activities are determined by the dictates of scholarly research, and how much were compromises or decisions made to accommodate the dictates and logistics of filmmaking? How many of the types of questions or interactions were positioned to accommodate the camera better (eg standing underwater in Kiribati)? Likewise, does the presence of a film crew–and indeed, the presence of the researcher’s teenage daughter–influence the behaviour and testimonies of participants (vs talking to just an adult researcher)?
I also wonder if the documentary presents a very…romanticized or idealized view of what anthropologists do, by focusing primarily on glamourous fieldwork. While a lot of the commentary from both Susie Crate and Mary Catherine Bateson discussed the basic contours of the anthropological mindset and toolkit, but there’s almost no information contextualizing how Crate’s findings would’ve contributed towards a final research project, nor more specific methodologies involved (aside from a brief mention of nightly journaling). It doesn’t show the profession of anthropology as a whole: nothing about grant applications, teaching, administrative obligations, research prep, etc. Nor do they explain the academic rationale for these locations being chosen; rather, it feels like Susie was dropping new research sites on Katie out of the blue. That said, it’s quite a breath of fresh air that these trips feel more like family adventures, rather than not making these trips Indiana Jones-style self-aggrandizing adventures. But I would’ve liked to have known more about the final research outcome, and research designs. That said, I do think it’s interesting they call these trips “fieldtrips”, rather than “fieldwork” in the caption slides–perhaps these trips weren’t so much for university-related research than they are family trips?
Finally, I thought showing the film as two sets of mother-daughter narratives was quite an interesting approach. By interviewing the daughter of Margaret Mead, the filmmakers were able to organically weave in a history of the discipline through the eyes of one of its most important figures. The parallel narratives of the Meads and Crates I think enhanced the personal interest angle by unfolding a trans-generational bildungsroman through anthropological training (Bateson showing off the wealth of knowledge she’s gained by the end of her life). If anthropology is about learning to see the world in a particular way, then what better metaphor is there than a parent teaching a child (and demonstrating this point by showing, not telling–very important for filmmaking!)? The film also places great emphasis on the need to pass on knowledge and passion to the next generation by giving them first hand experience; for the Crates, it was taking Katie to see the effects of climate change on human societies first hand, so that she can help lead the next generation. One important thing that this film doesn’t quite address is whether the presence of the researcher’s daughter might influence the dynamic of researcher-subject interaction, including the subjects’ perceptions of the researcher? Could Katie’s presence help Susie gain more access (because, as Bateson said, “women are less threatening”)?
My knowledge about how modern Mongolia faces modern anthropogenic climate change is somewhere between scarce to none, but I did watch an interesting historical webinar by historian Nicola di Cosmo earlier this year about how climate factors had historically influenced opportunities and limitations for medieval steppe empires in the area of present-day Mongolia. For example, he posited that the rise of Chinggis Khan could’ve been fuelled by a prolonged period of excess rainfall, as richer grasslands helped support the biomass needed for warfare (via horses), economic diversification, and state-building. On the other hand, he also argued that a 60 year long drought may have shaped the Uyghur Empire (then located in the Mongolian region) by shifting their economy from pastoralism towards trade and agriculture. I’m bringing this presentation up because while it might be almost literally ancient history, it might be useful to take a long view to see how humans (and especially peoples in the steppe) have historically adapted to climate change, and conversely been impacted by climate changes. Or at any rate, hope it’ll be interesting to some people here.
