The Need for Tension

Reading this article by Susan Harding really made me think more about our discussion in class on Wednesday regarding the role of the ethnographer and the authenticity of their account being determined by whether or not they experience the tension towards conversion. I think that Harding has a very interesting quote in her article that speaks to this. She writes, “There is no such thing as a neutral, ‘participant observer’ position, no place for an ethnographer who seeks ‘information’. Either you are lost, or you are saved”. I think that there is a lot of truth to Harding’s statement here. In observing a particular religious community, especially for extended periods of time, I do not believe that neutrality is really possible. Either the ethnographer will maintain somewhat of a defensive attitude for the beliefs that they individually held prior, or they would be at least somewhat swayed towards the beliefs of the culture that they are observing. But in moving the conversation forward, would it really be all that harmful for an ethnographer to be somewhat swayed towards that particular religion. As a society, we don’t discredit a scientist because he/she believes in the accuracy of the idea they are presenting, and how is the legitimacy of an ethnographer any different? In many ways, isn’t this tension to convert a sign of true understanding and therefore a marker of legitimacy in an ethnographic work?