We’re beyond the narrations Lucknow India of interpretative anthropology. Ethnology overlaps with literature, introspection, memory, although without merging with them. The anthropologist now is both Lucknow India the observer and the observed. He fixes his gaze on others Lucknow India while being himself part of them. He collects information and finds that he is himself an informant. He asks questions Lucknow India to others but also, at the same time, to himself. Hence the difference lies not in the distance but in the motivation. Which doesn’t mean taking the writings of an ethnologist Lucknow India to be literature but that the two types of writings are contiguous and complicit.
Lucknow India Map Free – Lucknow India Subway Maps – Lucknow India Metro Maps – Lucknow India Map Photo Gallery
Lucknow Metro begins service! From fares, stations to frequency and
nice Map of Lucknow Travelsmaps Pinterest Map, India and West
Delhi–Kolkata high speed rail corridor
Lucknow Metro Route Map
New Delhi Railway Station
In the contemporary global dimension of things, it is possible in some way to re-construe the return, the familiar, even if within a dynamic no longer circular but multidirectional, comprising multiple internal and external trajectories. During the last few decades anthropology has gone beyond the assumption whereby the elsewhere is its only and exclusive object of enquiry, the only acceptable type of “distance.” It has begun to also concern itself with the endotic, the known, to practice cultural criticism, bringing about what George Marcus and Michael Fisher have defined as a “return home,” a “repatriation.” Needless to say, in this case too, one never returns exactly to the point of departure, the place one had left behind.
In a world of non-places, of spaces that are not yet places or no longer places, what meaning are we then to attribute to staying back today? At a time in which anthropology has had to come to terms with the crisis that has invested its object of study, we’re called upon to once more ask ourselves whether such a decision, such an act can also be part of anthropological practice. The anthropologists who remain and encounter those who, like them, have not gone away experience directly, in their lives, the new cultural dynamics. They see those who leave and can analyse the ways by which separation occurs; they see those who arrive burdened with new problems and can, in each of the cases they are faced with, interpret the hybridizations, the conflicts, the surfacing of new processes by which identity is affirmed and confirmed.
By staying where they are, these anthropologists can ponder the circumstances of post-emigration, can re-envision the territory they live in as it transmutes into a frontier territory and can reinterpret the unease that goes with the changes, the suffering, the restlessness, the “what am I doing here,” the remorse, the cultural shock of those individuals who may feel they belong to an unchangeable tradition, whereas, in all effects, they are caught in the maze of globalization. Finally, in remaining on home grounds, these other anthropologists can analyse and narrate both the emptying out of the villages around them and, simultaneously, the processes by which those villages become re-inhabited by new people.