Loizos 10.11.11

In this week's readings, I'm still ruminating on a point made in Chapter 2 of the Loizos book. In discussing the praise worthy work of Asch and Chagnon he mentions that Asch had developed his "own view" of the Yanomami culture. Over a series of films Asch and Chagnon had chronicled various view of Yanomami society. Initially the ethnographers had brought to the film the warlike behaviors demonstrated by the tribe, but over type they had actually also captured footage of the same man engaged in an aggressive attack on an enemy village was also filmed peacefully engaged at another time in bathing his child. Initially, I thought how important it was that the series of films is accessible so that the characters can be viewed as more than one dimensional in their daily or seasonal activities. An ethnographic film series can certainly add a level of depth about a culture, society and humans that would be difficult to appreciate in a one-time film release. However, Loizos points out that the Asch had developed a different point of view as he spent time studying the tribe. The readings have presented many questions surrounding authenticity, bias, editor's judgement, but I had not yet considered the very nature of how much time an ethnographer spends with their subject is yet another layer of complexity in interpretation. It stands to reason the more one enters into a relationship with a subject matter that understanding and opinions will change and evolve. So which interpretations are more accurate --- first impressions or understanding that can only be achieved through iterative relationships built over time?