Jacknis

Both articles assigned this week, Faye Ginsburg's “Now Watch This Very Carefully” as well as Ira Jacknis's “Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: Their Use of Photography and Film” take a close look at the methods used by the anthropologist Margaret Mead, specifically her contribution to the world of visual ethnography.

According to Jacknis, Mead and her husband, Gregory Bateson,“in many ways [they] began the field of visual anthropology” (Jacknis 160). Jacknis discusses their research in Bali and the ways they went about conducting their study. Mead recorded her findings through what she called 'running field notes' and kept a daily diary while Bateson was largely responsible for using film, both still and motion. The significance of the use of pictures in their study is not that it was actually used but the weight and precedence the photos and videos were given in the final ethnographic study. As Jacknis points out the photos became more than mere illustrations (Jacknis 165). Its important to note that Bateson and Mead were using the cameras as “recording instruments, not as devices for illustrating our theses” (Jacknis 165). When choosing the photos that would be used in the final product, Mead and Bateson aimed to pick ones that would juxtapose and compliment the text in ways that would remain scientific and objective. Additionally both anthropologists put together their own presentations. Mead edited together short films that, while providing a theoretical interpretation of Balinese culture, was not supplemented by the descriptive and scientific texts as done with the research with Bateson. This is where film and photo can harm an ethnographic study, when they are taken at face value without an explanation of what they are representing. In the conclusion of the Jacknis article, Mead is quoted, “There is no such thing as an unbiased report upon any social situation....the surest and most perfect instrument of understanding is our own emotional response, provided that we can make a disciplined use of it” (Jacknis 172). Bateson and Mead differed later in life on the use of photography in anthropology with Mead advocating its use.

In Ginsburg's piece, also on Mead, the impact of Mead's films in today's world is addressed. Despite not receiving the same respect as her male counterparts in her time, Ginsburg makes the point that Mead's work in the visual anthropology field has paved the way for many great things. Her methods opened her field to the greater world through the use of film and pictures. She understood that film has a lasting effect that a written study does not always have. It can be re-analyzed many years later and still possess new meaning. Mead was an anthropologist and yet still brought films to the general public that were interesting to watch. It was even said in the Jacknis article that only the most interesting or unique things were filmed. This, however, raises the question of the value of the work. Does its entertainment value lessen its value as a scientific piece of work? If the film was paired with a detailed description, an explanation of what is being shown, then perhaps not. In any other case, it's a subjective answer.