CHAPTER 7
PERSPECTIVES OF A NATIVE ANTHROPOLOGIST

What does it mean to investigate the history of one's own people who are also politically and economically disfranchised? What does it mean to turn their view of the world into an analytical and scholarly analysis? What does it mean to work with youngsters who share the same culture but are alienated from the beliefs that you have been taught to honor? These questions emerged out of my field experiences as a "native anthropologist." This dissertation research symbolizes a discourse between the African American community and one of its members. In this chapter, a definition of "native anthropologist" and how that role influenced the data gathering and my interpretation of events are d iscussed.

In anthropological parlance, a native anthropologist is considered a field worker who conducts research on the cultural or ethnic group of which that individual is a member (Jones 1988:30). Common values, languages and beliefs allegedly have permitted native anthropologists to represent more adequately the emic perspective of their cultural group (Jones 1988:32). It has been assumed that native anthropologists have been enculturated in a cultural group and therefore understand the meanings embodied their behaviors.

Despite the proposed advantage of emic perspectives, anthropologists have been questioned concerning their ability to portray objectively their own ethnic culture. Delmos Jones (1988:31) suggests that, "students are generally taught that a person working among his own people cannot maintain the degree of objectivity desirable." Jones (1988:33) argues that this philosophical debate influences the research process. For me as an African American anthropologist, I was keenly aware of this philosophical debate throughout my research.

However, I perceived that the debate is not about objectivity as much as it is about the power of paradigms. Thomas S. Kuhn (1970) dispelled the notion of complete objectivity in research. Also, anthropologists have long assumed that knowledge is relative. Kuhn (1970:23) suggests that "a paradigm is an accepted model or pattern" that has been reached by consensus.

Therefore, for me the issue has been to discover the consensus of thought between the two cultures that have enculturated me -- the African American community and the academic community. The academic culture has trained me in a European American world view of studying different cultural groups. While my African American culture has taught me to understand the European American culture in order that I may pursue social justice, but warned me not to become coopted by it. Therefore, this dissertation reflects a paradigm that has emerged from an internal and external discourse between two cultures.

In searching for the appropriate paradigm to explain African American ethnicity, I had to find the balance between my emic knowledge of the culture and the existing theoretical models that explained this phenomena. The prevailing view of ethnicity among many anthropologists has been that ethnicity is socially constructed out of the political economy of pluralistic societies. Therefore, it has been assumed that mode of production has driven ethnic behavior. This theoretical model seemingly has described more sufficiently the African American response to their displacement in St. Petersburg than other theories. However, as a native anthropologist, my emic perspective has suggested that political economy does not totally explain an African American value of spirituality. For example, my native view of African American culture tells me that the ethnic behaviors of the elders in the community have not been determined by modes of production. At times, I discerned their spiritual nature was more of a determinant of their lives than their material well being. When discussing the injustices of the past, I found among the elders a silent but strong rectitude. I was reminded of a spiritual that is frequently sung in African American churches: "I have betn buked and I be'n scorned, I be'n talked bout as sure as you born; but as long as I know I got a seat in the kingdom, that's all right." Their spiritual postures exuded a confidence of other worldliness that a materialist ideology does not seem to explain. Therefore, a dialogue between the two cultures has provided insight that will lead to an expansion of the current paradigm explaining African American ethnicity.

This epistemological weakness indicates the lack of "native anthropology." "Native anthropology" is defined as "a set of theories based on non-Western precepts and assumptions (Jones 1988:31). Gwaltney (1981:48) further explains that "native anthropology" is the incorporation of indigenous elucidation and perspectives into theory building. Jones (1988:30) contends that "there is yet no set of theoretical conclusions generated from the point of view of native anthropologist."

"Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose " advises Zora Neale Hurston (1984:174). When doing research especially with disenfranchised groups such as African Americans, this process often is questioned. 'The people say that the truth is the light,' but they know also that the 'truth is a razor' (Gwaltney 1981:59). Therefore, the African American community cautiously has revealed itself. Many African Americans have assumed that research is either synonymous with finding fault with the community, or political inaction (Jones 1988). Too often research has further stigmatized the community and created more problems than it solved. Also, many African Americans have viewed research as a process of subterfuge. Being "black," living in St. Petersburg and doing research were not sufficient to encourage people to disclose themselves. I had to show who controlled my research data and prove that my goals were aligned with the community.

This question of allegiance has been a common experience of native anthropologists. Beatrice Medicine, (1978) a Sioux found that many Indians were very cautious with anthropologists because of their perceived prior role in assisting the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Being a native anthropologist did not automatically ensure acceptance, she had to prove her commitment to improving the status of Native Americans with her knowledge. Passing this criterion opened doors.

For me, being African American and working on my doctorate, opened more doors than just being "black and living in St. Petersburg." It was not uncommon for my informants to call other contacts and say, " I got a young lady here who is doing her doctorate on Blacks in St. Petersburg; I would like for you to talk to her." On other occasions, I was paraded around community functions and women's club socials as someone working on my Ph.D. Several informants offered their help because they wanted to contribute to my success.

Many African Americans participated in this research project because of their strongly held values towards education. It was not uncommon for some informants to say "I am real proud of you. I didn't get much education but you young people have to get all you can." One informant showed me her masters thesis from the University of Michigan and said, "I know getting a doctorate is not easy honey, but you hang in there." For the older African Americans, a young African American woman achieving a doctorate signifies another blow against racist assumptions about the intelligence and the learning capacity of Black people. Therefore, my doctorate exemplified a victory for them also.

African Americans feel closely associated with the triumphs and failures of each other (Martin and Martin 1978). I realized that achieving a doctorate was not an individual trophy. But I felt it more keenly when I heard those words of encouragement and when I sat eating sweet potato pie with women and men who treated me as if I was one of their granddaughters. These chats reinforced the bond that I was one of them and they were a part of me. I sensed if I failed, the community also failed. I knew that my field work, the writing of my dissertation and my Ph.D. belonged to the African American community as much as it did to me.

It would be naive of me to suggest that all African Americans in St. Petersburg perceived my goals as being aligned with theirs. One of my greatest disappointments occurred when the person who had been most instrumental in encouraging me to study the history of African Americans in St. Petersburg declined to be interviewed. After I wrote a couple of letters requesting an interview, she telephoned me. She said, "Evelyn, I like you and I know that you are a good person, but I would be a fool if I gave you my information. I am writing my own book." I knew that was the final word. No amount of cajoling would change her mind. The color of my skin had nothing to do with her decision, competing personal goals was the issue.

Frequently, the anthropological and the African American communities have expected African American anthropologists to examine stereotypical assumptions which have been made about their communities (Vesper) 1985). I did not find this issue a major concern among African Americans. Many of the respondents assumed that God would take care of wrongs and truth would emerge. Others suggested that African Americans were powerless to change past events. One informant argued, "White people are going to do what they want to do, but Black people have to go on living with them." This was not a fatalistic statement but a statement of spiritual survival.

Nevertheless, the focus of this research was not remembering the past to correct past events but remembering the past to control the future. My informants were aware that the research data would be incorporated into an educational program for children. While interviewing, many injected warnings that I should pass on to the students. Frequently, advise about the value of education and work were given. One gentleman spent an afternoon talking to me about how he received a college education while he worked. He showed me the work tools that his father had used to help build the Gandy Bridge. At end of the interview this gentleman, who is also a retired school teacher, volunteered to lead discussions with youngsters.

The concept of the "native anthropologist" frequently has implied that the world views of the native anthropologist and his or her cultural group are monolithic. In some ways, I believed that the common experience of racism in America creates a common sense of heritage among most African Americans. It only took one session with young African American students between the age of 9 to 11 years to remind me that many of these youths had not been enculturated by the same system. I found that these children did not share common values and beliefs with me concerning African Americans. When I tried to provide them a contextual framework for understanding African Americans in St. Petersburg, I was confronted with many negative attitudes. They concluded, "Blacks ain't got no sense.... They are violent.... They kill each other." I realized that I had justified my research on data concerning African American youths' devaluation of their Africanness. However, I was shocked to discover how deeply many youths had internalized these negative stereotypes. This reality was a painful process for me as an African American. I felt that I and these younger children were mutually one but a destructive gulf separated us.

Confronting this truth brought me face to face with the meaning of "native anthropologist." Feeling connected with these children, I found it difficult to maintain an "objective" and detached position. My emotions ranged from anger to sadness. These encounters led me to seek a deeper analysis of these children's perceptions. I questioned them, talked to friends, and looked for patterns within the community to find answers for my observations and feelings. This dissertation has included an analysis of these events.

Creating a paradigm that can be used to prevent further deterioration of African American youths while also providing an accurate portrayal of African Americans in St. Petersburg has required finding a delicate balance between my own ethnic values and the process of scholarship. As a native anthropologist this process has juxtaposed my world view as an anthropologist with my world view as an African American. It has challenged me to investigate some assumptions which I held about African American culture and African Americans. Being a native anthropologist has challenged me to determine if my assumptions are based either on my enculturation or my acculturation. Discovering the balance between the two has meant walking a tight rope in an scientific world that has valued positivist assumptions and an African American community that has been suspicious of research, period. To prevent a dismissal of my research as being subjective rhetoric, I have had to question continually assumptions which I have made and assess what motivated them. Nevertheless, I have been aware that this research not only served my needs as a doctoral student but the needs of the African American community.

As an African American, the experience of being with African American youths proved that the impact of racism was more than a conceptual framework. Although the realism shattered some aspects of my idealism and led me to investigate further some of the underlying assumptions supporting these children's behaviors. I have concluded that had I not had contact with these children my dissertation would have reflected the ideals of the elders and the statistical analyses of the social scientists and policy makers. Facing them provided me insight into their world view and the conditions that shape their lives.

A key to understanding the scholarship of a native anthropologist is realizing that research is a contextual relationship (Angrosino 1989b: 315-326). This process is built not only on one's cultural heritage but also influenced by the audience for which the message is intended (Angrosino 1989b).