In our discussion last Wednesday, I remember that we made distinction between Ehrenreich’s approach to investigating the predicaments of poverty and those utilized by ethnographers. In contrast to the way in which Ehrenreich wrote mostly about her own experiences in Nickel and Dimed, some of us argued that ethnographers seem to focus more on describing the experiences of their “subjects” than their own stories. We ultimately seemed to conclude that ethnographers’ investigative methods are superior to the “let me try that” style of investigative journalism employed by Ehrenreich because it is probably more conducive to capturing the “truth” of realities such as poverty and homelessness.
Yet, according to Gans in “Positive Functions of Poverty,” we could also argue that the two seemingly contrasted approaches share an important similarity in that they are both modes through which middle or upper class professionals benefit from the predicaments of poverty. This argument might then lead us to question the morality of anthropology—how can those in more privileged circumstances approach anthropology or investigative journalism tactfully and justly? I think that we alluded to similar inquiries in our discussion on Wednesday too, and from what I remember, Professor Spickard brought up the utilitarian perspective as a means of determining morality in anthropology or investigative journalism, meaning that a work of anthropology can be justified if it ultimately benefits more people than it harms (like an ends justify means sort of reasoning).
I like the utilitarian perspective because it evaluates overall social benefit, but I also find the way it which it might encourage people to live over-examined lives problematic. For example, should a musical artist who creates disturbing music videos steer away from doing so because he might be initiating more societal harm than good; should a tattoo artist decide to pursue another profession on the grounds that they ultimately capitalize on other peoples’ hapless searches for meaning in their lives? To bring this back to our discussion, isn’t an anthropologist’s obvious motivation to pursue their craft enough of a justification?