EMOTIONS IN THE FIELD: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

• Published in: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 17 - 37
• Main Author: Beatty, Andrew
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2005; Blackwell Publishers; Blackwell Publishing; John Wiley & Sons, Inc
• Subjects: Anger; Anthropological research; Anthropology; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes; Case studies; Comparative analysis; Cross cultural studies; Cultural anthropology; Cultural studies; Culture; Emotion; Emotional distress; Emotional expression; Emotional states; Emotions; Ethnography; Ethnology; Field work; Humanism; Indonesia; Javanese; Methods and techniques; Observations; Psychological aspects; Social aspects; Socialization; Sources and methods; Universalism; Words; Indonesia; United Kingdom; Evaluation; Sociocultural context; Survey; Cross-cultural comparison; Methodology; Theory; Cultural relativism; Development; Anthropology; Consequence; Emotion; Man
• ISSN: 1359-0987; 1467-9655
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2005.00224.x

In the anthropology of emotion, rival approaches - cultural relativism and a universalism based on common humanity or shared experience - imply different forms of engagement in the field. This article, a sceptical appraisal, suggests that ethnographers commonly fail to build the diversity of emotional practice into their accounts and have therefore provided a flawed basis for theorizing and comparison. With reference to two Indonesian cases - Nias and Java - I suggest that the domain of emotion is diversely bounded cross-culturally and is inconsistently constructed in particular contexts. This has critical implications for fieldwork methodology, cross-cultural comparison, and theories of human development. / Les approches rivales de l'anthropologie de l'émotion (relativisme culturel et universalisme basé sur une humanité commune ou sur l'expérience partagée) impliquent des formes différentes d'engagement sur le terrain. Le présent article, qui se veut une évaluation sceptique, suggère que les ethnographes parviennent rarement à intégrer la diversité des pratiques émotionnelles dans leur réflexion et faussent par là leurs propres bases de théorisation et de comparaison. À partir de deux cas en Indonésie (Nias et Java), l'auteur suggère que le domaine de l'émotion est jalonné différemment selon les cultures et n'est pas construit de la même manière dans tel ou tel contexte. Cette observation a des implications profondes sur la méthodologie du travail sur le terrain, la comparaison interculturelle et les théories du développement humain.