Walking in Rhythm - Ethnography - page 25

These concepts are at once restricting and liberating. They stretch one's per-
ceptual talents to the limit, enabling the ethnographer to see familiar events in
a new light and to notice previously unnoticed details of behavior and routine.
At the same time, these pressures shape the ethnographer's every move, much
as natural factors such as the weather and the contours of rock shape a rock
climber's every move. The rock climber must concentrate, searching for the
best crack in which to wedge a hand or a foot and the best position from which
to work a way up the rock. The sheer drop, stray gusts of wind, and the con-
tours of the rock direct and limit the climber's moves to the top. Similarly, the
fieldworker must grab hold of and work a way through what is said and done
throughout fieldwork. These concepts shape data collection and analysis, and
they prevent the researcher from either drowning in detail or missing subtle
differences in the quest for the big picture.
The concepts of inter- and intracultural diversity are particularly useful
here. Intercultural diversity refers to the differences between two cultures, and
intracultural diversity refers to the differences between subcultures within
a culture. Intercultural differences are reasonably easy to see. Compare the
descriptions of two different cultures on a point-by-point basis—their politi-
cal, religious, economic, kinship, and ecological systems and other pertinent
dimensions. Intracultural differences, however, are more likely to go unno-
ticed. An early effort of mine to describe an inner-city school at which I taught
as a teacher-researcher excluded much of the neighborhood's diversity. Friends
in the community reviewed a draft, and their comments made me realize the
simplicity of my description. I had described the torn-down buildings, the
drunks and addicts on the street, the factory-like schools, and the crime. I had
failed to mention, however, the small but vocal minority who were trying to
revitalize the inner city. Some houses were newly painted, a newly organized
parents' association was attempting to deal with juvenile delinquents, and a
community club had developed. I had missed an important segment of the pop-
ulation. These people were in the minority, but they did have an impact on the
community. No group is completely homogeneous. In my zeal to conceptualize
and communicate the big picture, I failed to see and share the differences—the
intracultural diversity. Thus, my big picture was not the whole picture. The
revised draft was a more balanced report that gave the big picture more credi-
bility and was a closer approximation of the whole.
These concepts place a check on our observations. They help the field-
worker see differences that may invalidate pat theories or hypotheses about
observed events in the field. In some cases, these differences are systematic
patterned activities for a broad spectrum of the community, compelling the
fieldworker to readjust the research focus; to throw away dated and inappro-
priate theories, models, hypotheses, and assumptions; and to modify the vision
of the finished puzzle. In other cases, the differences are idiosyncratic but