This article questions the dichotomy of ‘classical anthropological topics/traditional fieldwork’ versus ‘contemporary topics/multi-sited imaginary’ and interrogates the role of village ethnography in the understanding of kinship among globalising Indian middle classes. The argument is twofold. Firstly, I suggest that the current rhetoric on the dismissal of village ethnography in contemporary South Asian studies does not adequately address possible continuities between anthropological studies developed in the 1980s and 1990s and more recent multi-sited approaches. Secondly, I argue that village ethnography might constitute an integral part in a larger multi-sited research agenda, the latter aiming at understanding shifting kinship relations and related politics of identity among highly mobile middle classes. If we understand villages as a field of relations, an important connection is seen to emerge between villages’ importance in middle-class trajectories and imaginations and their role as research locations.
Amit V (ed.) (2000) Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World. London: Routledge.
2.
AppaduraiA (1991) Global ethnoscapes: Notes and queries for a transnational anthropology. In: FoxRG (ed.) Recapturing Anthropology. Working in the Present, Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 191–210.
3.
AtalYMarriotMcKSrivastavaVK (2005) Intensive studies in village: In retrospect and prospect. The Eastern Anthropologist, Special Number on Rural Profiles: Scenario58(3–4): 295–311.
4.
BaileyFG (1958) Caste and the Economic Frontier: A Frontier in Highland Orissa, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
5.
BeteilleA (1965) Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
6.
Beteille A (1972) The tribulations of fieldwork. Economic and Political Weekly 7(31/33): 1509–1516.
7.
BornemanJHammoudiA (2009) The fieldwork encounter, experience, and the making of truth. In: BornemanJHammoudiA (eds) Being There: The Fieldwork Encounter and the Making of Truth, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1–23.
8.
BusbyC (2000) The Performance of Gender. An Anthropology of Everyday Life in a South Indian Village, London: Athlone Press.
9.
CarstenJ (2000) Introduction: Cultures of relatedness. In: CarstenJ (ed.) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–36.
10.
CarstenJ (2007) ‘Introduction’. In: CarstenJ (ed.) Ghosts of Memory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–35.
11.
CliffordJ (1997) Routes: Travel and Translation in Late Twentieth Century, Boston: Harvard University Press.
12.
Coleman S and von Hellermann P (eds) (2011) Multi-Sited Ethnography. Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods. London: Routledge.
13.
ComaroffJComaroffJ (2003) Ethnography on an awkward scale: Postcolonial anthropology and the violence of abstraction. Ethnography4(2): 147–179.
14.
CookJLaidlawJMairJ (2009) What if there is no elephant? Towards a conception of an un-sited fieldwork. In: FalzonM (ed.) Multi-Sited Ethnography. Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 47–71.
15.
DirksNB (2001) Castes of Mind. Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.
DubeS (2010) Lost and found. Villages between anthropology and history. In: MinesDPYazgiN (eds) Village Matters. Relocating Villages in the Contemporary Anthropology of India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–48.
17.
DumontLPocockD (1957) Village studies. Contribution to Indian Sociology (o.s.)1: 23–41.
18.
EnglundH (2002) Ethnography after globalism: Migration and emplacement in Malawi. American Ethnologist29(2): 261–286.
19.
EpsteinTS (1962) Economic Development and Social Change in South India, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
20.
Falzon MA (ed) (2009) ‘Introduction’. In: Falzon M (ed.) Multi-Sited Ethnography. Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1–24.
21.
FergusonJ (2011) Novelty and method. Reflections on global fieldwork. In: ColemanSvon HellermanP (eds) Multi-Sited Ethnography. Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods, London: Routledge, pp. 194–206.
22.
FortunK (2009) Figuring out ethnography. In: FaubionJMarcusGE (eds) Fieldwork is Not What it Used to Be. Learning Anthropology’s Method in a Time of Transition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 167–183.
23.
FullerCJSpencerJ (1990) South Asian anthropology in the 1980s. South Asia Research10(2): 85–105.
24.
GalloE (2013) Migrants are not all the same. Families, Remittances and Morality in Southern India, Migration Letters10(1): 33–46.
25.
GardnerK (1995) Global Migrants, Local Lives. Travel and Transformation in Rural Bangladesh, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
Gardner K and Osella F (guest editors) (2003) Migration, modernity and social transformation in South Asia: An Overview Special Issue of Contributions to Indian Sociology 37: 5–28.
27.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Culture, New York: Basic Books.
28.
GoughK (1952) Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic change among the Nayars of Malabar. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute82: 71–87.
29.
GuptaAFergusonJ (1997) Discipline and practice: ‘The Field’ as site, method, and location in anthropology. In: GuptaAFergusonJ (eds) Anthropological Locations. Boundaries and Grounds for Field Science, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1–46.
30.
GuptaD (2005) Whither the Indian village: Culture and agriculture in ‘Rural’ India. Economic and Political Weekly40(8): 751–758.
31.
IndenRB (1990) Imagining India, London: Hurst & Company.
32.
JodhkaSS (1998) From ‘Book View’ to ‘Field View’: Social anthropological construction of the Indian village. Oxford Development Studies26(3): 311–332.
33.
KurienP (2002) Kaleidoscopic Ethnicity. International Migration and the Reconstruction of Community Identities in India, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
34.
LambertH (2000) Sentiment and substance in North Indian forms of relatedness. In: CarstenJ (ed.) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–90.
35.
LevittP (2001) The Transnational Villagers, Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
MarcusGE (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology24: 95–117.
37.
Marriott McK (ed.) (1955) Village India: Studies in Little Communities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
38.
MasseyD (1994) Space, Place and Gender, Cambridge: Polity Press.
39.
MencherJGoldbergH (1967) Kinship and marriage regulation among the Namboodiri Brahmans of Kerala. Man (N.S.)2: 87–106.
40.
MencherPMUnniRK (1976) Anthropological and sociological research in Kerala: Past, present and future directions. In: SteinB (ed.) Essays in South India, Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, pp. 56–78.
41.
MinesDYazgiN (2010) Introduction: Do village matters? In: MinesDYazgiN (eds) Village Matters. Relocating Villages in the Contemporary Anthropology of India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–29.
42.
MintzSW (2000) Sow’s and silver linings: A backward look at ethnography. Current Anthropology41(2): 169–189.
43.
OkelyJ (2007) Response to Marcus ‘How Short can Fieldwork be?’. Social Anthropology13(3): 353–367.
44.
OkelyJ (2011) Anthropological Practice: Fieldwork and the Ethnographic Method, London: Berg.
45.
OsellaFOsellaC (2000) Social Mobility in Kerala. Modernity and Identity in Conflict, London: Pluto Press.
46.
RahejaGGGoldAG (1994) Listen to the Heron’s Words. Reimagining Gender and Kinship in North India, Berkeley: University of California Press.
47.
SaxN (2010) ‘Village agency’. In: MinesDYazgiN (eds) Village Matters. Relocating Villages in the Contemporary Anthropology of India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–88.
48.
SrinivasMN (1955) The Remembered Village, Berkeley: University of California Press.
49.
TrautmanTR (1981) Dravidian Kinship, New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
