Caroline is singing us a song. And then in the end she asked us to sing together for ourselves. Not to save anyone’s soul, just to feel how it is to be in the song mode.
For two days, Iza Kavedžija, Liana Chua, and Natalia Buitron brought a group of inventive ethnographers from across Europe to the Center for Research on the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities. They invited us to three panels — visual, sonic, and literary practices — for a conversation around the future of multimodal ethnography. How can we value and evaluate academic works that operate at the border with artful practices? How can we accommodate unusual academic outputs in a journal such as the Cambridge Anthropology Journal?
The workshop was strongly reminiscent of a project conducted by three of my colleagues at the Humboldt University. Iza opened her introduction with an acknowledgement of this earlier project, which bears the same subtitle: “Evaluating multimodal forms.” I know these colleagues well. I co-taught multimodal ethnography with two of them in recent years. Back in Berlin that same week, I met with Andrew Gilbert and Ignacio Farias. They were a bit perplexed by the workshop in Cambridge. They were surprised they weren’t invited to that Cambridge gathering —but it’s just that the word hadn’t gone around yet. These things happen. Tomas, Ignacio and Andrew have just completed a manuscript of their toolkit for multimodal appreciation, which they are submitting to the multimodal section of the American Anthropologist journal.
It is significant that we met to evaluate two master's theses, getting the students through their defences. Both students were very inspired by the multimodal ethnography teaching. Max did the ethnography of a VR project related to ageing. Alexander got started with fermentation workshops and went on to develop a thesis on fungal biohacking communities in Berlin. Both of them could have used multimodal material in their thesis. Yet they made only use of text, though, in a rather straightforward academic way. Not that the guidelines are especially rigid. It just doesn’t pay extra to go that extra mile, and the students seem to be acutely aware of it.
It doesn’t seem to pay more to go the extra mile in professional academic ethnography either. And this was at the core of the conversations we had during these two days in Cambridge. The extra work is not accounted for in the point systems of the neoliberal university. So why do anthropologists, like the group that was gathered in Cambridge that day, keep pushing that border? Two arguments came up a lot. 1) Other media and mediations make us see and feel things differently, and the ethnographic media can be integral to the ethnographic argument. 2) Making ethnography different is fun and keeps us alive. These two things, of course, go together. But aren’t these two arguments applicable to any good ethnography today? That’s the question I asked Julia Offen, the editor of anthropology and humanism, and the main invited provocation on the literary panel. So there is the boring stuff on one hand and the good, creative stuff on the other hand? Wasn’t ethnography always multimodal? In short, yes, replied Julia. Until the discipline weighted itself down with value criteria derived from big science to justify its existence (and its funding).
American Anthropologist was the first journal to get a multimodal section going. Andrew, as well as his colleagues of the “Multimodal Appreciation” project in Berlin, aren’t convinced that having a separate section for multimodal work is the way to go. The term will die, Andrew tells me over coffee, because it will be absorbed by the field of anthropology again. He quotes (loosely but precisely) a sentence from the last editorial of the Entanglement journal, a multimodal venue that closed shop in 2022: “This rush to tell the story of multimodal ethnography, to stake a claim and to define, feels really premature; it forecloses, it feels to us, experimentation which is at the heart of multimodality.” (1)
So maybe it’s not about staking a claim at all. Not about carving out new territories or formalising yet another sub-discipline. Maybe it’s about resisting that very impulse — the impulse to fix, to define, to institutionalise too early. Maybe it’s about staying with the looseness, the makeshift, the experimental — not because it’s easier (it’s not), but because that’s where ethnography comes alive. In the tentative, the collaborative, the not-yet-named. What if the point is not to assert what multimodal ethnography is, but to keep asking what it can be? Maybe it’s about holding open space for that singing-together moment — not to save anyone’s soul, but just to be, for a while, in the mode of the song.
(1) Nolas, M., Varvantakis, C., Long, R., Walton, E., and Logan, B. (2022). Last but not least, entanglements, 5(1): 1-7