University of Cape Town

School of African and Gender Studies, Anthropology and Linguistics

Anthropology: Course Code: ANS3400F

Essay/Project/Assignment Cover Page

Student Name: _STELLA RAINE_

Student Number: _RNXSTE002_ Due Date: _14/04/2023__

Essay/Project/Assignment: __ESSAY 1 __

Plagiarism Declaration[1]

1. I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend it is one’s
own.

2. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in this essay/project/assignment that I have
taken from the work(s) of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced.

3. I have used the Harvard/Author-date/APA system for citation and referencing.

4. This essay/project/assignment is my own work and I have not copied any other text.

5. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing
it off as his or her own work.

Signed: __STELLA RAINE_________________ Date of Submission: _______________

Essay 1: Due Monday 24 April 12h30

Using Fiona Ross’ ‘Sense-scapes: senses and emotion in the making of place’, (Chapter 3 in Fiona Ross,
2010, Raw Life, New Hope, Cape Town: UCT Press. pp 54-75) discuss the extent to which it is possible
and/or desirable to present detailed ethnographies of ‘peoples’ cultures’ without necessarily reinforcing
images of what Roger Keesing (1994:301) has termed ‘radical alterity’.

Since the early years of modern Anthropology, the essentialized and fixed representations of
cultural ethnographies has been standard procedure for most European anthropologists. Western
ethnographers relied on the innate sense of otherness when researching and analysing different
cultural groups and their traditions, habits and movements, and maintained this firm ‘us vs.
them’ narrative that aligned with the Western ideals of cultural superiority and, hence, cultural
inferiority of the time. This style of approach to ethnographic research becomes problematic
when such an immense and seemingly impassable gap between cultural habits are created, and
can culminate in the event of what Keesing defines as ‘Radical Alterity’. Radical Alterity is the
notion that some cultural norms, habits and values are so immensely different from one another,
that the anthropologist must examine them from a complete and fundamental shift in one's
preconceived ideas (Keesing, 1990). Radical Alterity has been used to argue against
ethnocentrism by means of ethnographers completely distancing themselves from any personal
feelings and experiences in order to experience the 'culture' with an unbiased mind, however,
there is a fundamental flaw with this theory. This is the fact that anthropologists, as human
beings who have experienced their own cultural upbring, habits and norms, cannot simply 'wipe'
their preconceived cultural identity from themselves in order to experience another culture anew.
In Keesing's Theories of Culture, Revisited, he goes as far to say that this radical alternity has
never truly existed. He further states that the radicalised and stagnated ideas of separate cultures
as completely different and 'other', fails to recognize the fact that cultural norms, values and
experiences are ever changing, and are not an insular and fixed 'thing', especially in our now
globalised experiences of cultural movements (Keesing, 1990). This essay will examine and
discuss, using Keesing's Theories of Culture, Revisited, the issues and inconsistencies of the
theory of radical alterity, as well as using Ross's ethnographic work in the Park township (Sense-
scapes: senses and emotion in the making of place), will argue that using a less fixed idea of
cultural habits and movements will present a more nuanced and realistic ethnography of the
cultures studied.
 2

At face value, it is easy to understand how the theory of radical alterity came into fruition and
arose in popularity in Anthropology. As an attempt to counteract Western ethnocentrism, Radical
Alterity places emphasis on the fundamental differences between cultures to show that
comparisons and heiraches in ethnographic research should not be the norm. This therefore
inherently puts the culture researched as the 'other', something so far removed that using past,
engrained ethnographic teachings and understandings are not, and should not, permissible. In
earlier Anthropological understandings of cultural experiences, this ideology could have been
seen as fair, due to the notions that African, Asian and American cultural groups, and their
practices and experiences are completely separate to Western cultural experiences, and that these
cultural groups are steeped in tradition, ritual and mysticism. This, however, is where the first
major issue with radical alterity comes into play - the fact that it reduces cultures to an
essentialist 'thing-like' (Keesing, 1990), that has inherent, unwavering characteristics that can be
neatly defined, compartmentalised and even commodified. Falling into this ‘one-note’ idea of
culture can feel very natural, as it often is how we typically understand cultures to be. Even in
ethnographic research, we discuss Chinese culture; Balinese culture; Islamic culture - reducing
these expansive and dynamic cultural experiences into modules of standardised traits, rituals and
traditions (Keesing, 1990). This essentialist ideology is not realistic to cultural mobilities and
exchanges, as cultures evolve alongside humans, languages and technology. I fell into this trap of
essentializing the Catholic ‘culture’ in my research into the ritual of the first holy communion,
and the taking of the Eucharist. In my research, I generalised much of the practices not
referencing how deeply catholicism is entwined with different ethnic groupings, each having
their own unique takes on the rituals themselves. This essentialism was a disservice to my
research into the rich and nuanced history of Catholicism .

The notion of Radical Alterity also brings forth issues of power and representation, as well as the
role of the ethnographer in the recording and retelling of cultural stories and heritages. In its
creation, radical alterity was meant to be a tool utilised against ethnocentric (the belief that one's
own cultural or ethnic norms, mores and values are somehow superior to others) ideals.
However, with radical alterity, a penchant for essentialing and exoticising cultural practices can
be apparent (Keesing, 1990). As previously stated, the role of the ethnographers observing
 3

radical alterity is to completely ignore one's own experiences in order to fully experience another
culture. However, using Bourdoiu’s theory of Habitus, in which he states that habitus is formed
by repeated social and cultural behaviours, and which therefore shapes one's perception of the
world socially, culturally, spiritually etc. (Costa & Murphy, 2015). Anthropologists, as a
consequence of this, cannot simply wipe their brain of its Habitus in order to experience
another's culture as if it was their own. This therefore does not fight the issue of othering and
ethnocentrism as it claims to do, especially as power dynamics between the ethnographer and
their subjects can form, as the ethnographer becomes a ‘translator’ of sorts for their culture of
study, allowing them to pick and choose what they deem as important to represent and share.
This can further misrepresentation, marginalisation and appropriation of cultures by
anthropologists, as the ‘thing-like’ culture becomes a commodifiable product.

So, how can ethnographers present nuanced and intricate cultural research, if not with radical
alterity? This can be done by utilising cultural relativism - the notion that cultural practices and
beliefs should be evaluated within the context of their own culture, rather than being judged by
the standards of another culture or any universalised ‘standard’ (Keesing, 1990). Cultural
relativism can be seen as a bridge between radical alterity (complete disregard of ethnographers
own experiences so as to experience another experience), and complete othering and
ostracization of other cultures practised by Western anthropologists of the past. In ‘Sense-
scapes: senses and emotion in the making of place’ the 3rd chapter of Ross’s book Raw Life,
New Hope, Ross utilises cultural relativism in her stay at the Park township, just outside of Cape
Town. In this chapter, Ross spends time refamiliarizing herself with the densely packed, maze-
like informal settlement. She lived in this area for about a year in the early 90s, experiencing life
in an informal settlement just before the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Naturally, as an
ethnographer, Ross played the role of an outsider - observing the participant observation method
of living with the group she is directly studying. With this, she gains some semblance of an
‘insider’ knowledge - learning the ways of life in the Park. However, Ross does not (and cannot)
observe radical alterity - as she utilises her own knowledge and experiences (for example, her
use of cartography to create a map of the Park alongside her community guide, Ponkies) as well
as gathering fieldnotes on her experiences in the township. Despite Ross’s role of ‘outsider’ as an
Anthropologist, she does not have an ‘I vs Them’, or ‘othering’ approach to her research.
Instead, this chapter focuses on the exploration of the community, its cultural rituals and habits
 4

through the lens of senses - a phenomenon that most humans experience everyday from the
moment they wake up. Whilst she walked through the Park township with Ponkies, she observed
the landmarks of the streams, mountains and railway-line; the sound of women chattering whilst
doing their midday washing and children playing; the smells of the green Sunlight soap bar and
sewage from lack of proper drainage and infrastructure… (Ross, 2010) By utilising the senses,
Ross was able to share a down-to-earth, realistic and detailed understanding of the daily lives and
routines of the citizens of the Park township. Instead of completely erasing her own experiences
in order to document this ‘new’ cultural experience, Ross was able to find bridging connections
of all aspects of human community through senses and emotion, allowing for an accurate cultural
representation of the people of the Park.

By examining the analysis of Keesing's Theories of Culture, Revisited and Ross's ethnographic
work in the Park township, this essay has highlighted the limitations of the theory of radical
alterity and argued for a more nuanced and realistic approach to the study of culture. By
recognizing the fluidity and variability of cultural practices and movements, researchers can gain
a deeper understanding of the complexities and intricacies of the cultures they study. Ultimately,
this more flexible and dynamic approach can lead to a more comprehensive and accurate
portrayal of the cultures and societies that make up our world.
 5

SOURCES CITED

Costa, C. and Murphy, M. (2015) “Bourdieu and the application of habitus across the Social Sciences,”
Bourdieu,Habitus and Social Research [Preprint]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137496928.0005.

Keesing, R.M. (1990) Theories of culture revisited. Canberra: s.n.

Ross, F.C. (2010) “Sense-Scapes: senses and emotion in the making of place ,” in Raw Life, new hope
decency, housing and everyday life in a post-. South Africa: UCT Press, pp. 54–75.
6