Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://admin.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist.
http://www.jstor.org
the sensation of moving, while standing still
Life histories and autobiographies are different from other sorts of ethnography, and useful
to anthropology in different ways. Books such as The Autobiography of a Winnebago Indian
(Radin 1963 [1920]), Sun Chief (Simmons 1942) and Nisa (Shostak 1981) open up to view
particularsegments of the ethnographic anatomy, while raising specific questions for modern
theory. They enable one to look more closely at the relationship between informant and eth-
nographer. Indirectly,they address the ethnographer's vision of the context and purpose of the
work itself. Because different people say who and what they are-how their lives were lived-
in different ways, the space between personal experiences and the events to which they are
attached will be differently constructed in each case. Whatever the space, the ethnographer
cannot avoid playing a role in that construction. What the ethnographer thinks of his findings;
what his or her relationship to the informant signifies for the findings; what is done with the
informant'swords and thoughts-such questions take on added meaning when the outcome
of the cooperation is the written life of somebody. Finally, changing professional opinions
about the usefulness of life histories, and about the nature of the relationship between "native"
and ethnographer,suggest how prevailing orientations in the discipline may be pushed this way
and that. Looking at what life histories are interpretedto mean is also a way of looking at what
anthropology is thought to be. I want to discuss some of these issues in terms of a particularlife
history.
In 1960, I published the life history of a Puerto Rican sugarcane laborer, "Taso" Zayas. The
book is called Workerin the Cane. It received relatively little attention when it was published.'
But a review of it in the American Anthropologist pointed up what was seen by the reviewer,
Joseph Casagrande, as a defect in the book's methodology. Taso, he writes, was never paid for
being an informant;the relationship between him and me:
was based on mutualregardand esteem ... this very relationshipmay have servedto makeTaso a
poorersubjectforan autobiography. As Mintzhimselfnotes,". . . yet he mustalwayshavebeen on his
guardto tryto protectthe imagehe would have me retainof him." In a relationshipmarkedby reci-
procity,would not such a need also be reciprocatedby the anthropologist?
[Casagrande1961:1358].
This comment embodies a canon of effective fieldwork of that era. Mutual regard and esteem
could not prevent distortion; they might even encourage it. Implicitly, an informant who was
not a friend could provide more "objective" findings than an informantwho was.
In his introduction to In the Company of Man (1960), Casagrande enlarges his position. Here
he enumerates those relationships he regards as analogous to that which takes shape between
anthropologist and informant, declaring that the relationship "has many of the attributes
of... student and teacher, employer and employee, friends or relatives ... psychiatristand his
patient" (1960:xi). But because the dyads Casagrande lists are radically different from each
other, and because each is quite differentfrom the informant-ethnographerrelationship, the list
is not helpful. All that seems firm in Casagrande's view is that the informant,whatever else he
or she may be, should not be a friend.
Though Firth,Nadel and their colleagues recognized that things were not really as simple as
all that, they were prudent. An overidentification with one informantor the befriending of one
segment of the community were dangerous practices, to be avoided. The maintenance of af-
fectless relations between ethnographer and informant was a way to keep the facts straight.
Brandes,writing a decade ago about Taso, invoked Nadel's strictures:
Itis of courseessentialto be on good termswith an informant,says Nadel,butthe desirabilityof estab-
lishingclose emotionalties with himis questionable.Mintz,as if inadvertently
to substantiate thispoint
of view, admitsthathis autobiographical informant,Don Taso,withwhom he was close friends,"must
alwayshave been on his guardto tryto protectthe imagehe would have me retainof him"(1960:9).
Stranger valueconsistspreciselyof the informant'slackof deep emotionalstakein his relationshipwith
the interviewer;theoretically,this situationenablesthe informantto confideof his life historyin a free
andemotionallyunfetteredway to the interviewer[Brandes1977:6].2
These writers address a common problem. They conceptualize in broadly similar ways the
relationship between the fieldworker and the person of different culture with whom he or she
is working. Firthis subtle but authoritative; he neither believes complete identification with the
informant is possible, nor does he think it beneficial to science. Casagrande and Brandes, in
their view of Taso's story, see a failure to achieve objectivity (which they apparently believed
was otherwise possible) when the ethnographer and the informantare friends.3
But there is a quite different way to conceptualize such relationships. Here, ethnographer
and informantare equals, ratherthan friends. One version of this contrasting view comes from
the pen of Kevin Dwyer (1982). Dwyer's book on his work with a Moroccan farmer takes the
form of uninterrupteddialogues, each such treating an event which took place during the time
they spent together. Dwyer sees this format as one step-if, indeed, there is any-toward es-
caping from the built-in asymmetry of powerful Outsider (subject) and defenseless Other (ob-
ject). Today's world, he tells us, challenges "conceptions of an independent Self and Other,
and calls into question views that break the tie between individual action and its social con-
text":
Forit is a worlddominatedby ideologicalsystemsthatclaim universalityand governedby economic
forces and institutions that weld geographically distant regions into tightly connected net-
works... wheredifferencesbetween,and varietywithin,humangroupsare remodeledintohierarchy
anddomination[1982:273-274].
finding Taso
Nearly 25 years afterthe book was published, during a visit to Brazilwhere I had been invited
to lecture on life history, a colleague asked me to write a paper for a special journal issue on
life history, to explain how I had chosen Taso. I wrote the paper (Mintz 1984) and explained
that I had not really "chosen" Taso at all. Briefly, the background to my work with him is as
follows.
InJanuary1948, I had been sent to Puerto Rico as a member of a student team assembled by
Julian Steward to carry out research there. Each of us selected the community in which he or
she was to work, but according to a theoretical design Steward had developed, consistent with
his own evolving theoretical view, called "cultural ecology."
I worked in a community I had picked as representative of the private sector of the Puerto
Rican sugar industry.That sector was principally corporate-only a few large plantations were
family-owned enterprises-and in large measure North American. The community Ichose con-
sisted of three small settlements in a rural barrio, BarrioJauca Primero, located in the south
coast municipality of Santa Isabel. I lived in BarrioJauca for over a year, and eventually wrote
my dissertation, a "community study," about it.
The person from whom I learned the most during my stay in Jauca was a sugarcane worker
named Anastacio (actually, as it turned out, Eustaquio)Zayas Alvarado, nicknamed "Taso." He
was one of a couple of dozen individuals whom I came to know well in Jauca the firstyear that
I lived there. They included males and females of widely varying physical type or "race," and
of all ages; most were born locally, but some had migrated to Jauca in search of work. There
were a couple of storekeepers and a few semiskilled persons-an electrician, a policeman, a
couple of public car drivers-and some fishermen. But most of the people whom I came to
know were sugarcane workers. All but a couple were seasonally employed. None owned any
productive propertyto speak of; none produced anything significant that he or she could con-
sume; all had to sell their labor, and to buy in stores everything they needed. Though there
were a few chickens and pigs, one cow, and some herbs growing here and there, this was as
purely proletariana community as I have ever seen.4 Nearly half of the people lived in company
houses and on company land at that time, but this feature of local life was changing fast. Also
about to change-though unforeseeable at the time-was the predominant place of sugar in
regional economic life (Ferguson 1985). "Taso" worked on the railroad,which belonged to the
reigning U.S. corporation of the region; it transported sugarcane and nothing else. The corpo-
ration operated three mills and supervised the production of cane on its own lands and on
leased or rented lands stretching over several municipalities. It had taken Taso half of his life
to achieve the dubious, poorly paid security his job provided, but that security was nonetheless
greater than what cane cutting or "seeding" or even operating a tractor or being a machinist
would have afforded him.
From my first encounters with him in the spring of 1948, Taso Zayas seemed to me to be
distinguished from his fellow Jauqueniosin certain regards. He was of course much like them
in most ways: he spoke the same language, wore the same kind of clothes, ate the same food,
seemed to seek his security in the same practices (for example, informal "water" baptism of
children, compadrazgo relations with friends and relatives, machismo expressed in sexual and
work attitudes, playing the illegal lottery)and symbols; and shared the same most importantor
most evident values (forexample, sexual jealousy, the subordination of women, the concept of
respeto, the rejection of birth control, distrustof the Catholic Church, and so on). But Taso had
a remarkable vocabulary; in his expressed opinions, he revealed a genuinely sophisticated
foreground, background
I have noted that Taso's life parallels significantly the history of his community and region.
His recounted experiences embody-incarnate-that history. Surely not everyone in Jauca ex-
perienced those things in just the same way. But our outsiders' knowledge of what happened
to the community becomes more immediate, richer, through having the testimony of a person
In the book, I stressed Taso's lack of representativeness, if what is meant by that term is typ-
icality, ordinariness or average-ness. Taso is not in my view (nor, I believe, in his own) repre-
sentative of Puerto Rico, of working people, or even of rural, working-class Puerto Rico. Be-
cause he is unusually intelligent and articulate, Taso would probably stand out among his fel-
low human beings in most cultures. Yet I would insist that Taso is nonetheless representative
of his time, his place, and his people, because his personal narrative, enriched by special in-
sight, expresses the experience of a community, a region, and a country-albeit embodying
each on somewhat different levels of abstraction. Through his personal story, Taso conveys to
the reader in an individual way the collective experience of a conquered people. What hap-
pened to him happened in the broadest terms to his society as well. His gift is to reveal his
experiences as they are embodied in, and embody, the history of his society. In this way Taso
emerges as a historical figure; what he explains to us is history, and by his own words, recount-
ing his deeds, he becomes powerfully representative of his culture and his time, without being
either ordinaryor typical.
It is when one sets aside individual uniqueness to address the shared perceptions that Taso
voices-shared with his family, neighbors, work partners,compadres and friends-that the is-
sue of representativeness needs to be addressed. I think that it concerns the extent to which a
person lives out, in her or his thoughts and acts and beliefs, the pressing issues that confront
the society of which she or he is a part. The notion of representativeness I have in mind here
may also have to do with the difference between how events are experienced, and what con-
structionsone makes of them morally.
In terms of Taso's experiences, it seems to me there cannot be much argument over how
North American business intereststook over Puerto Rico's south coast to produce sugar for the
American marketat a profit. Nor can there be much argument about the general effects of that
takeover on local life. To be sure, interpretationsmay vary. One might even imagine a lengthy
exchange of judicious opinions about whether it was, in the short run or the long run, "good
for" the Puerto Rican people-at least for those who did not immediately and enduringly feel
that takeover. But whatever the interpretation,when Taso tells us what was happening to him,
we discover it to be the obverse, integrated distinctively by his intelligence and moral judg-
ment, of what others might call "the world system." In my work I did not try to ask anyone to
confirm on some general or abstract basis Taso's opinions about the political and economic
consequences of North American rule in the south coast sugar industry.As to the basic facts of
that overlordship and its consequences for local people, I think that it would have been ludi-
crous to raise doubts about what it meant. Of course, the facts do not "speak for themselves";
no "facts" do. In a life history that eventuates in being history as well, any corroboration arises
from the perceptions of the individual reader, who is free to accept (or reject) the degree of
depicted conjuncture between the life and its external constraints.
discovering myself
I would never have undertaken the life-history project at all if I had not known Taso and,
indeed, if we had not been friends. It was that I already knew him (and thought I knew him
better than I did) that moved me to try. But the object of our work together became more and
more to make clearer and more visible what happened to people like Taso, by making clearer
and more visible what had happened to Taso. I think I was aware of at least some of the many
risksof distortion involved in our procedures. The goal of the project seemed worthwhile even
so.
Insteadof publishing Workerin the Cane, I could have attempted to publish, in the order in
which they were recorded and without commentary or interruption,the more than 300 pages
images
There are images behind the two rather different criticisms of Taso's life history to which I
have referred.The first such image has to do with science. Scientific objectivity is possible. It
requires either that the ethnographer ignore the fact that he/she, too, is a human being; or so
completely "prosthetize" the method that he/she becomes invisible. Then the life history is
pushed out in front of the reader with a long stick, from offstage (Mintz 1979:23). One objec-
tifies the data collection by becoming a camera, a lens, near-transparent;one capitalizes on
nondirectiveness, neutrality,strangervalue. The second such image has to do with self. Objec-
tivity, in this image, is impossible. The ethnographer remembers that there is no such thing as
a fact; there are only interpretationsbecause he or she, as well as the informant, is a human
being. One must deobjectify the data collection because one is part of the data and the data
are part of one; one never separates oneself from one's own thoughts, during the data collec-
tion. (These renderings of mine are of course only crude representations of the subtleties in-
volved.)
The contrast has, I think, political implications but they may not be apparent. Both the sci-
entist and the self-person may be of the Rightor of the Left;for instance, either may believe in
self-determination for dependent peoples, or its opposite. Neither is bound naturally to any
particular political ideology. It is not that anthropology as a field, or in its viewpoints, has
moved in any particulardirection on the political spectrum. It is merely that 40 years ago there
seem to have been more scientists; now there appear to be more selves.
Some political implications do enter, but by a different route. Anthropology began as a West-
ern project. It had to become aware of its limitations as a form of objective inquiry, and thus to
understand better the conditions under which ethnographer and informant work together. To
the extent that its practitioners may fail to recognize this, anthropology can serve as handmai-
den for other forms of Western penetration of the rest of the world. Then its role in projects of
the sortTaso and I undertook together can be to conceal, ratherthan reveal, a history of oppres-
sion. But that is the politics of understanding how nations, societies, and peoples are related to
each other. It is a different matter from the ways in which individuals-say, the informant and
the ethnographer-are related to each other.
a final word
What motivated me more and more to continue my work with Taso, as we went furtherwith
his story, was my conviction that his life and how he interpreted it should be made available
forothersto studyand ponder.I did not thinkmuchabouthim and me doing this as we were
doing it, and perhaps I ought to have. I thought instead about how better to explore with him
more parts of his experience, at greater depth, more completely. Often I went over by myself
what I had learnedin the precedingsessions, to look for connections,tryingto understand
better the course of events. Taso would come back from a hot day of backbreaking labor, and
join me to talk. We would often continue after dinner for a few hours. The next day, as I strug-
gled to transcribe our evening's exchanges, he would be back at work.8
As I have already said, the answer to how I "chose" Taso for the life history is simple: he
chose me. He could have refusedto see me the firstday we met;buthe helpedme instead.He
could have done the same on innumerable occasions thereafter, but he never refused to help
me. And when I visited him for the firsttime after our work in 1956 was done-the collecting
finished, the seemingly endless transcribing, translating, and editing underway-I remember
that he said the only thing he has ever said to me that gave me a pang of guilt, though I am
certain he did not intend it to. "I miss you," he said, "I miss our work together. Now that the
little house behind ours stands empty, I remember our work."
There is the unequalness, the asymmetry that most matters in the relationship between an-
thropologist and informant, as opposed to the unequalness, the asymmetry that matters be-
tween metropolis and colony. For I enjoyed the continuing freedom to associate with others
for the fun of it-to teach and think and read and write for a living. AfterTaso's book was done,
I could go on observing, loafing, experiencing vicariously. My friend, every bit my equal-in
most importantways, I believe, my clear superior-went on working with his hands, at terribly
hard work, for too long hours, at too little pay.
notes
references
Brandes, S.
1977 EthnographicBibliographies in American Anthropology. Central Issues in Anthropology 1:6.
Casagrande,J.
1960 In the Company of Man. New York: Harper.
1961 Review of Worker in the Cane. American Anthropologist 63:1358.
Dwyer, K.
1982 Moroccan Dialogues. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ferguson, B.
1985 Class Transformationsin Puerto Rico. Ph.D. dissertation. New York:Columbia University.
Firth,R.
1936 We the Tikopia. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Friedrich,P.
1989 Language, Ideology and Political Economy. American Anthropologist 91(2):295-312.
Marcus, G. E.
1986 Contemporary Problems of Ethnographyin the Modern World System. In Writing Culture. Clif-
ford, J., and G. E. Marcus, eds. pp. 165-193. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mintz, S.
1960 Worker in the Cane. New Haven: Yale.
1979 The Anthropological Interview and the Life History. The Oral History Review 1979:18-26.
1984 EncontrandoTaso, me Descobrindo. Dados 27(1):45-58.
Nadel, S. F.
1939 The Interview Technique in Social Anthropology. In The Study of Society. Bartlett,F., M. Gins-
berg, E. Lindgren,and R. Thouless, eds. pp. 317-327. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Radin, P.
1963[1920] The Autobiography of a Winnebago Indian. New York: Dover.
Shostak, M.
1981 Nisa. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.
Simmons, L.
1942 Sun Chief. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steward,J. H., RobertA. Manners, EricR. Wolf, Elena Padilla Seda, Sidney W. Mintz, Raymond L. Scheele
1956 The People of Puerto Rico. Urbana: University of Illinois.