Content uploaded by Martin Gruber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Gruber on Jan 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
VOL. 5 | N. 1 | 2016
VOL. 5 | N. 1 | 2016
€ 15.00
www.vejournal.org
PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES TO VISUAL ETHNOGRAPHY
FROM THE DIGITAL TO THE HANDMADE. AN INTRODUCTION
FRANCESCA BAYRE, KRISTA HARPER, ANA I. AFONSO
PARTICIPATORY ETHNOGRAPHIC FILMMAKING: TRANSCULTURAL
COLLABORATION IN RESEARCH AND FILMMAKING
MARTIN GRUBER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST AS CURATOR: INTRODUCING A DIGITAL
PHOTOGRAPHY EXHIBITION AS A COLLABORATIVE
AND PARTICIPATORY FIELDWORK METHOD
SHIREEN WALTON
YOUNG TRANSYLVANIANS BETWEEN MEMORIES OF
A MULTICULTURAL PAST AND ASPIRATIONS FOR A EUROPEAN
FUTURE: A PHOTOVOICE PROJECT IN A GERMAN-LANGUAGE SCHOOL
ANNE FRIEDERIKE DELOUIS
ETHNOGRAPHIC DRAWING: ELEVEN BENEFITS OF USING
A SKETCHBOOK FOR FIELDWORK
KARINA KUSCHNIR
DRAWING CLOSE -ON VISUAL ENGAGEMENTS IN FIELDWORK,
DRAWING WORKSHOPS AND THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
AINA AZEVEDO, MANUEL JOÃO RAMOS
PORTRAITS OF CHANGE BY FARMERS IN SOUTHERN GUINEA-BISSAU
A PHOTO ESSAY
JOANA ROQUE DE PINHO
BITTER ORANGES. AFRICAN MIGRANT WORKERS IN CALABRIA
DIANA REINERS, CAROLE RECKINGER, GILLES RECKINGER
ISSN 2499-9288
PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES TO VISUAL ETHNOGRAPHY
FROM THE DIGITAL TO THE HANDMADE
Issue edited by Francesca Bayre, Krista Harper and Ana I. Afonso
15
VOL. 5 | N. 1 | 2016
MARTIN GRUBER
UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN, GERMANY
PARTICIPATORY ETHNOGRAPHIC
FILMMAKING: TRANSCULTURAL
COLLABORATION IN RESEARCH
AND FILMMAKING
ABSTRACT
This paper introduces an approach of Participatory
Ethnographic Filmmaking I developed by making lms
together with rural dwellers in Namibia, Botswana and
Angola. Grounded in the eld of ethnographic lmmaking,
it aims at making anthropologically informed lms together
with groups of people with no previous lmmaking
experience. Workshop participants shape the form and
content of the lm and contribute to its practical making.
In this paper, I explain how such lms can be made in a
wide range of different settings. Participatory Ethnographic
Filmmaking gives the participants the possibility to
shape their own media image and generates new forms of
collaborative knowledge.
KEYWORDS
Visual anthropology, ethnographic lm, participatory
lmmaking, collaborative lmmaking, collaborative research,
audio-visual ethnography, collaborative knowledge
MARTIN GRUBER
is a researcher and lecturer at the Department of
Anthropology and Cultural Research, University of
Bremen. He conducts long-term ethnographic research
on the relationships between bees and humans. Before
completing a PhD on participatory ethnographic lmmaking
at the University of Bremen, Martin worked as a freelance
anthropologist and lmmaker.
15
PAPERS
www.vejournal.org
DOI: 10.12835/ve2016.1-0057
16
He studied Visual Anthropology at Goldsmiths College,
London and Social Anthropology at the University of
Hamburg. Martin Gruber’s complete CV can be found here:
www.kultur.uni-bremen.de/en/staff/alphabetical-order/
detail/gruber.html
E-mail: gruber@uni-bremen.de
17
INTRODUCTION
Participatory elements have become fashionable in lm,
research, and development projects around the world. Today,
it has become almost impossible to implement any major
project without including those who are believed to be most
affected. The rational behind this is to put research partici-
pants, who are often marginalised, in the position to inu-
ence the decisions affecting their lives. In anthropology, since
the authority of representation has come under debate, col-
laboration with research subjects seems like an effective way
for ethnographers to not only continue making lms about
the people they study, but to possibly make even better lms.
Participatory lmmaking has also become an important as-
set in diverse elds, such as development cooperation, town
planning, youth work and to academic research. However,
generally speaking, while positive effects of “participation” or
“collaboration” are usually taken for granted, the practices,
underlying intentions and methods, as well as the outcomes,
often remain obscure. In this paper I discuss an approach of
Participatory Ethnographic Filmmaking I developed through
making lms in collaboration with natural resource users in
the Okavango River Basin of Namibia, Botswana and Angola.
The lmmaking combines my anthropological perspective
with multiple local perspectives in a collaborative process
of knowledge production. I will rst give an overview of the
context in which the lmmaking approach was developed and
then discuss three overlapping elds that contributed to its
formation, namely anthropological lmmaking, indigenous
media and participatory video (PV). This is followed by an ac-
count of the production of three lms in Namibia, Botswana
and Angola, roughly in its chronological order. The paper will
close with an evaluation of the approach and its epistemologi-
cal implications.
BACKGROUND
I started experimenting with participatory elements of
lmmaking during the production of “Wiza Wetu - Our For-
est” in 2007. Aimed at local audiences, the lm promotes the
sustainable use of forest resources in the Kavango Region of
Northern Namibia (Pröpper & Gruber 2007). Following my
visual anthropological background, my co-director Michael
Pröpper and I produced the lm largely within the conven-
tions of observational lmmaking combined with some re-
enactments and interviews. We included two Namibian pro-
ject assistants into the lm team, as we believed their input
would make the lm more meaningful for local audiences.
Moreover, we worked closely together with representatives
of the intended audience during the entire production. Two
years later, I implemented a lm workshop together with my
commissioner Ute Schmiedel, based on ideas and methods
originating in participatory video (PV) (Braden 1998; Lunch
& Lunch 2006). The workshop was organised as training for
18
South African and Namibian research assistants of an inter-
national research project. The participants conceived and shot
the entirety of the resulting lm, “Bridging the Gap”, which de-
picts their daily work for the project (Schmiedel et al. 2009).
The combination of methods from ethnographic lmmaking
and PV seemed like a worthwhile activity. Firstly, the resulting
lms were extremely popular amongst local audiences, as they
were based on local language, imagery and narratives. Second-
ly, they reached broad audiences in the countries of production
and elsewhere, constituting a form of cross-cultural mediation
(Ginsburg 1995). Thirdly, they resonated with the demands of
donors of international research and development projects to
include “local stakeholders” into their projects.
I advanced this approach during my PhD within an in-
ternational research project investigating resource manage-
ment and climate change in Angola, Namibia and Botswana
(Gruber 2015). Based on a transdisciplinary agenda, over 100
social and natural scientists worked together in “The Future
Okavango” research project (TFO).1 Developed as a means by
which to investigate the complex and interconnected char-
acter of environmental problems, transdisciplinary research
intends to transcend disciplinary boundaries and develop
overarching methodologies and perspectives. By denition,
transdisciplinary research is collaborative, implying not only
the collaboration with other researchers but, even more im-
portantly, external stakeholders (Wickson et al. 2006; Russell
et al. 2008). Therefore, the principal aim of the lms I made
was to include local stakeholders into the research process by
feeding their knowledge back to the project so their perspec-
tives could be taken into consideration in further research. A
secondary task was to raise awareness and communicate their
concerns to wider audiences in the respective countries and
beyond.
METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
Three overlapping elds, ethnographic lmmaking, indig-
enous media and participatory video, served as my methodo-
logical foundation. In the following I will discuss those aspects
most relevant for my own practice. Participant observation
has been anthropology’s central method since Bronisław Ma-
linowski’s forced stay on the Trobriand Islands during the
First World War. The researcher takes part in the everyday
lives of his or her “informants” – usually through extended
periods of eldwork and in-depth relationships. This concept
of participation is also widely perceived as an important asset
of observational ethnographic lmmaking, intended to repre-
sent the eldwork experience (MacDougall 1995; Grimshaw
2001; Henley 2004). At the same time, the more active inclu-
sion of research participants into the lmmaking process also
has a long tradition in ethnographic lm and one can certainly
speak of such participation as a distinctive or even dening
characteristic of the genre (Durington 2009: 197). Both no-
1 For further information
see:
future-okavango.org
last viewed on 4.4.2016
19
tions of participation – the lmmaker’s participation in the lives
of his or her research participants and the protagonists’ par-
ticipation in the lmmaking – can be traced back through the
history of anthropological lmmaking.
Robert J. Flaherty’s (1922) Nanook of the North, shot in 1920
and 1921 was based on “intense and long-term engagement with
the people and the landscape in which they lived” that made his
lmmaking “akin to ethnographic eldwork” (Grimshaw 2001:
48). However, guided by the idea of expressing his admiration
for the people living in this harsh environment, Flaherty was
not interested in showing his protagonists’ realities as experi-
enced in the early 1920s, but rather in portraying a romantic
and idealized version of their lives before Western contact. The
lm thus contains a lot of staging and re-enacting, for example
of “traditional” subsistence activities. While this approach was
later criticised as a distortion of reality and as “salvage anthro-
pology”, it required the active and creative involvement of its
protagonists. Jay Ruby (2000: 88-91) cites extensive passages
from Flaherty’s records in order to demonstrate how these re-
enactments were conceived in cooperation with his protago-
nists, rather than simply being directed by him. The protago-
nists’ active participation is both a prerequisite and an outcome
of conceiving and enacting these sequences.
Jean Rouch, French lmmaker and anthropologist, took
Flaherty’s ideas further and included his protagonists in the
process of lmmaking more substantially. Rouch did not be-
lieve in an objective scientic truth and neither in the lm
camera as a passive recording device. For him the presence
of the camera created the situations he wanted to document
as the cinematic truth – cinéma vérité. He adhered to a prin-
ciple of shared anthropology that was based on a mutual ex-
change with his protagonists (Rouch 2003: 43ff; see also Hen-
ley 2009: 310ff). As part of this reciprocal relationship, Rouch
regularly screened his rushes and rough cuts back to his pro-
tagonists in order to discuss the ethnographic content of the
footage and the lming yet to come. Moreover, he also went
back to the communities that had participated in the lmmak-
ing in order to show them his nished lms as a form of recip-
rocal exchange.
However, Jean Rouch proposed a more radical shift in the
politics of representation through a
camera that can so totally pass into the hands of those,
who until now, have always been in front of the lens.
At that point, anthropologists will no longer control the
monopoly on observation; their culture and they them-
selves will be observed and recorded. (Rouch 2003: 46).
Despite these futuristic visions and his ground-breaking
reexive approach, Jean Rouch always retained a high level of
control over his lmmaking and never literally handed the cam-
era over to his protagonists. He later reinforced this position
20
through his rejection of video technology, with its democratis-
ing effects, as expressed in an interview I conducted with him
in 2001 (Gruber 2006).2 However, I want to direct the atten-
tion to another central element of Rouch’s work, which is par-
ticularly important for my own lmmaking, namely the inter-
action with his protagonists during the shooting, described by
himself as follows:
the lmmaker stages this reality like a director, impro-
vising his shots, his movements or his shooting time, a
subjective choice whose only key is his personal inspi-
ration. And, no doubt, a masterpiece is achieved when
this inspiration of the observer is in unison with the
collective inspiration of what he is observing… (Rouch
2003: 185).
Visual anthropologist Paul Henley highlights that “the
presence of some element of risk and chance, to which the
lmmaker would be required to improvise an inspired re-
sponse” was a central element of Rouch’s lming (Henley
2009: 255). These inspired performances (Henley 2009)
were certainly most keen and innovative in Rouch’s early eth-
noction3 lmmaking. During his anthropological eldwork
on labour migration in West Africa, Rouch found it “impos-
sible to show the full range of the migrants’ experience with-
in the limitations of a conventional documentary” (Henley
2009: 73). He therefore asked his protagonists to improvise
signicant situations from their daily-lives, resulting in two
feature-length lms Jaguar (1967) (shot in 1954/1955) and
Moi, un Noir (1959). Situated between ction and documen-
tary, these lms combine a “laboriously researched and care-
fully analyzed ethnography” with a ctional framework (Stol-
ler 1992: 143). Rouch produced his ethnoctions largely as
documentaries, “without a script and with minimal direction,
relying primarily on the protagonists to determine the way in
which the action of the lm would develop” (Henley 2009:
259; see also Sjöberg 2009: 236). After agreeing with the pro-
tagonists upon what would happen in a particular scene, Rouch
shot it without direction or interruption. They normally lmed
the sequences in the chronological order of the storyline, and
tried to lm only one take and angle per shot (Jørgensen 2007:
63). This documentary style of lming allowed the presence of
intuition, play, chance, and risk which Rouch found so impor-
tant.
The role of ethnoction as a form of ethnographic enquiry
is elaborated by Johannes Sjöberg (2008, 2009) on the ba-
sis of his own lmmaking. Sjöberg’s point of departure is
Peter Loizos’ notion of projective improvisation, “the use
of improvisation and fantasy as projective methods” (Loizos
1993: 46). This implies that ethnoction lms are based on the
protagonists’ lived experiences, projected through improvised
acting. Johannes Sjöberg differentiates between the descrip-
tive and expressive functions of acting (Sjöberg 2009: 6ff).
2 Various scholars and
filmmakers criticised
Rouch’s practices as
paternalistic, apolitical,
colonialist and even racist.
For a comprehensive
overview of the critique
see Henley (Henley 2009:
330).
3 While Rouch himself
called this approach
“ciné-fiction” or
“science fiction”, it later
became referred to as
ethnofiction. The origin
of the term is however
unclear (Henley 2009: 74f
see also 441).
21
Expressive improvisations refer to the possibility of revealing
the protagonists’ feelings, dreams and fantasies. The anonym-
ity provided by their ctive characters allows the protagonists
to disclose emotions, secrets or other intimate issues that may
be difcult to express otherwise. Descriptive improvisations, on
the other hand, serve to illustrate or demonstrate certain ac-
tivities, which may be especially helpful if the subject is difcult
to represent through other lmic approaches, for example, in
the case of illegal or socially unacceptable activities. They are,
however, not merely applied out of necessity, “because there is
no other way to tell it … [but because] ethnoction could be a
better way to tell it from an ethnographic point of view” (Sjö-
berg 2009: 8; emphasis in the original). The anthropological
knowledge is generated by the process of lmmaking, much as
in conventional ethnographic lmmaking:
Unlike modern drama-documentaries where most of
the research is conducted before the shooting and de-
veloped into a script, the research in Rouch’s ethno-
ction continued during the shooting … The projec-
tive improvisation thus stands at the very centre of
the research process in ethnoction since the protag-
onist are not merely re-enacting events, but actually
expressing partly subconscious knowledge of ethno-
graphic value through their improvisations. (Sjöberg
2009: 7).
Inspired by the work of Jean Rouch, I adopted re-enact-
ments and improvised acting into my lmmaking. Based on
their shared experiences, imaginations, dreams and fantasies,
as well as local narratives and all sorts of models from the me-
dia, these were extremely popular amongst the protagonists
and local audiences. I want to argue that the introduction of
a ctional layer not only has an effect on the protagonists but
also changes the relationship between protagonists and lm-
makers: they become players of the same (Rouchian) game
rather than being bound into the more rigid hierarchical rela-
tionship between observer and observed that is characteristic
of more conventional documentary lmmaking.
Ideas of handing over the camera (Rouch 2003), lm-
makers putting themselves at the disposal of their subjects
(MacDougall 1995) and other forms of collaborative lm-
making (Elder 1995) were extremely popular in the eld of
ethnographic lmmaking from the early 1970s. Nevertheless,
none of the anthropological lmmakers actually gave up au-
thorship and yielded practical aspects of lmmaking to their
protagonists.4 This discrepancy was counteracted a number of
years later, in the late 1980s, when indigenous peoples around
the world started to produce their own lms, television pro-
grammes and other media forms – often supported by anthro-
pologists. In the same period, the authority of anthropologi-
cal representations, and especially of ethnographic lm, was
being questioned both within and outside the eld (Clifford
4 A notable exception
is the “Navajo Project”
undertaken by Sol Worth
and John Adair (1972),
who trained their Navajo
participants to make
16mm films. However, they
took these films as data
to be analysed in order
to find out if there was a
distinctive Navajo way of
seeing the world as well
as to draw more general
conclusions about their
perception and culture.
22
& Marcus 1986; Nichols 1991; Weinberger 1994). Discussions
of indigenous media (Ginsburg 1991) and its relationship to
ethnographic lmmaking became extremely prominent in an-
thropology. While some scholars presented indigenous media
as inauthentic, and its introduction as potentially harmful to
the respective communities (Weiner 1997), others argued that
the appropriation of video technology by indigenous peoples
was an important step in their struggle for self-determination,
and opened up an important new area of research and activ-
ism (Michaels 1986; Ginsburg 1991; Turner 1991; Aufderheide
1995).
Anthropologist Faye Ginsburg denes indigenous media
rather exclusively as the work of “original inhabitants of areas
later colonized by settler states … struggling to sustain their
own identities and claims to culture and land, surviving as in-
ternal colonies within encompassing nation-states” such as can
be found in Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Canada,
and Latin America (Ginsburg et al. 2002: 25; emphasis add-
ed). Their efforts to appropriate video and television technol-
ogy were “provoked” (to use her term) by several factors, such
as these peoples’ growing desire to control the images made
of them, the often unwelcome introduction of cable television,
and the advent of relatively inexpensive video equipment (1995:
67). In the context of increasing cultural and political pressure
on indigenous communities, Ginsburg perceives their activities
in this eld as a form of “cultural activism” – a conscious form
of “self-determination, cultural maintenance, and the preven-
tion of cultural disruption” (Ginsburg 1995: 70). While their
work is frequently produced and consumed exclusively within
the communities to which its makers belong, it may also be
shaped by a more cosmopolitan context and aimed at a wider,
and even international, audience.
Indigenous media work has shown itself to be a particu-
larly robust form of contemporary cultural objectica-
tion. From small-scale video and local radio to archi-
val websites to national television stations and feature
lms, indigenous media makers have found opportuni-
ties for cultural creativity of all sorts. (Ginsburg 2011:
238).
Faye Ginsburg suggests that ethnographic and indigenous
media are complementary expressions of the wider project of
“representing, mediating, and understanding culture” (Gins-
burg 1995: 65). Inspired by Jean Rouch’s “regards comparés”,
Ginsburg proposes contrasting the work produced in different
genres in order to provide a wider more comprehensive view of
cultural or social phenomena.5 Although the individual works
may have originally been intended for other purposes, in advo-
cating the juxtaposition of multiple contrasting genres, Gins-
burg proposes an approach to ethnographic and indigenous
media that allows the consideration of individual cases within
a common analytical framework (1995: 70).
5 Events he organised in
order to provide insights
into a certain ethnic
group or geographical
area by presenting films
made by anthropologists,
filmmakers and artists,
along with those made
by members of the group
under consideration.
For an overview see the
website of the “Comité
du Film Éthnographique”
(2016).
23
Anthropologist and activist Terence Turner, who was in-
volved in introducing video technology amongst the Kayapó in
the Brazilian Amazon area, was interested in the social, political
and cultural impact of lmmaking on indigenous communities
and their relationships with the dominant society.
Turner offers a detailed description of the social and po-
litical dynamics triggered by the medium’s introduction into
Kayapó society (Turner 1992, 1991). While, in Turner’s ac-
counts, access to the technology was mainly regulated through
existing power structures, he describes how specic actors
tried to improve their position through lmmaking: the peo-
ple who worked as camerapersons or video editors combined
a prestigious position within the community with the possi-
bility of mediating with the outside world, and thereby accu-
mulated symbolic capital and other resources necessary for
political leadership (see also Flores 2009: 215f). Many Kayapo
working with Turner were thus able to gain or reinforce their
political power, while some politically ambitious young men
took up lmmaking in order to enhance their careers (Turner
1992: 6f; see also MacDougall 1987: 56). The “monopoliza-
tion of control” over video production counteracted Turner’s
efforts to provide equal access to the whole community and
reinforced numerous social conicts (Turner 1991: 73). At the
same time, lmmaking became signicant for the Kayapo’s
relationship with the dominant society. During their protest
against the planned “Belo Monte” hydroelectric dam near Al-
tamira on the Xingu River, Kayapo camera-operators became
a preferred image of international journalists. In order to
achieve a high-prole media presence, they began to intensify
their lming activities during public events, not only to make
documents of their struggle but also to make their struggle
visible to the public (Turner 1992: 7). The work of Terence
Turner suggests that lmmaking can become a tool of politi-
cal struggle.
Indigenous media relates to my work in numerous ways.
Firstly, Terence Turner reminds us of the potential for (inter-
nal) conict when introducing the medium of lm into a small
meshed community. It is important to note that dispute over
access to such projects are by no means restricted to indig-
enous or non-Western contexts, but are likely to occur in any
kind of setting. Secondly, both Turner and Ginsburg empha-
sise the signicance of lm as a form of cultural and politi-
cal activism, which can be mobilised for different purposes.
Thirdly, Ginsburg’s work suggests viewing the lms I make
together with other media products (for example ethnograph-
ic lms) in order to understand certain cultural phenomena.
This suggests that they can be seen as a form of anthropologi-
cal enquiry. However, while indigenous media aims at giving
the respective communities long-term independent access
to video technology and thus provide them sustainably with
a tool of self-expression, my own projects were extremely
short-term and took place under my constant guidance. This
24
mode of production situates them in the eld of applied visual
anthropology (Pink 2009).6
I incorporated an applied visual methodology into my
lmmaking that until now has received little attention in an-
thropology. Participatory Video (PV) is an approach intend-
ed to enable representatives of marginalised groups to discuss
and communicate their concerns by means of video – initially
within their own peer group, and subsequently to outside au-
diences. The participants of PV workshops receive some basic
training in operating a video camera (and sometimes edit-
ing), and are encouraged to make lms about a subject that is
agreed upon within the workshop (Braden 1998). The process
of lmmaking is the central aspect of PV, viewed as a “tool
to facilitate interaction and enable self-expression” (White
2003a: 65), while the resulting lms are often perceived as
less important.
They typically consist of interviews or activities lmed in a
straightforward documentary style, but may also incorporate
dance, drama, songs and poems (Braden 1998: 92). While PV
is mostly employed within development projects, it may also be
applied in a range of other contexts, such as academic research
(Kindon 2003; Mistry & Berardi 2011), capacity development
(Menter et al. 2006), and youth work (Wang et al. 2012). PV
projects, by their very nature, are not supposed to follow a giv-
en template, but rather are meant to be carefully adapted to the
given situation.
The foundations of PV lie in the 1960s, when scientists and
policy makers started discussing the involvement of individu-
als in political processes under the notion of citizen participa-
tion (Verba & Nie 1972). The exclusion of marginalised groups
from decision-making processes, and the question of how they
could be included, played an important role in these discus-
sions (Arnstein 2007). These developments must be seen in
the context of the broader social and political developments
of the time, such as the struggle for racial and gender equality.
Community media projects that saw lm as a possible tool of
participation and social change emerged in different places in
Europe and North America (Nigg & Wade 1980).7 Such con-
cerns were paralleled by demands to liberate marginalised
people in the so-called Third World. One work, often referred
to as pioneering, is Brazilian Paulo Freire’s, “Pedagogy of
the Oppressed”, in which he argues that the development of
a critical consciousness “empowers” the poor to understand
their situation and to take measures against poverty and op-
pression (Freire 1977). “Empowerment” was seen as a form of
radical societal transformation through individual and class
action, resulting in changes in law, property rights and other
aspects of society (Cleaver 1999: 599). From the late 1970s,
these ideas gained increasing acceptance amongst develop-
ment scholars and practitioners: the rural poor who were
usually the “beneciaries” of development projects should be
able to inuence “the forces which control their livelihoods”
6 Applied visual
anthropology
encompasses a great
variety of activities
united to the extent
that they are “using
visual anthropological
theory, methodology
and practice to achieve
applied non-academic
ends” (Pink 2006:
87). At the same time
these projects have the
potential to feed back into
academia, contributing
to theory building and
methodological innovation
(Pink 2009: 25)
7 One such project that
is usually represented as
having contributed to the
development of PV is the
Fogo Process, which was
part of the National Film
Board of Canada’s (NFB)
Challenge for Change
programme (see for
example Lunch & Lunch
2006; White 2003b;
Frantz 2007).
25
(Oakley 1991). Due to the perceived shortcomings of the top-
down approaches of donor-driven and outsider-led develop-
ment, development workers and donors increasingly began to
adopt participatory methods based on the inclusion of local
perspectives, priorities, knowledge and skills in the planning
and execution of their programmes (Cooke & Kothari 2004).
Since the 1980s, participation has dominated the develop-
ment discourse and practice to the extent that it has become
its “new orthodoxy” (Henkel & Stirrat 2004).
Today it is, politically speaking, almost impossible to im-
plement any substantial project in research, development or
planning that does not incorporate elements addressing the
issue of “stakeholder inclusion”. At the same time, participa-
tory approaches have been placed under increasing critique
since the 1990s. A basic argument is that local knowledge is
not a commodity, readily available to local people, as it is often
represented as being in participatory discourse, but is rather
“culturally, socially and politically produced and … continu-
ously reformulated as a powerful normative construct” (Ko-
thari 2004: 141).
Geographer Uma Kothari (2004: 144f) emphasises the dif-
culty of unveiling the underlying power relations, as these are
accepted as given and reproduced through processes of self-
surveillance and normalization (Foucault 1995).
David Mosse (2004) points out that participatory processes
are themselves characterised by control and dominance: “pro-
ject staff ‘own’ the research tools, choose the topics, record the
information, and abstract and summarize according to project
criteria of relevance” (19). He further argues that participants’
priorities and needs are usually shaped by their perception of
what the project with which they are involved is able to deliver
(23f). Participatory processes may therefore legitimise and im-
plement decisions already made by development agencies or
donors. This argument is supported by Uma Kothari (2004:
148f). Drawing on Erving Goffman (2010), she interprets par-
ticipatory processes as performances:
The development practitioner … is asking participants
to adopt and play a role using certain techniques and
tools, thus shaping and, in some instances, conning
the way in which performers may have chosen to repre-
sent themselves. The stage and the props for the perfor-
mance may be alien to the performer. The tools provid-
ed can limit the performance so that the performers are
unable to convey what they want to; the stage has been
set by others and the form of the performance similarly
guided by them. (Kothari 2004: 149).
Kothari claims that the participants need to be “good actors”
and that those people who either do not possess the required
skills or do not wish to perform within these predetermined
frameworks will be misrepresented, or even not represented
at all. At the same time, drawing on Michel Foucault’s (2010)
26
and Anthony Giddens’ (1984) work on structure and agency,
Kothari acknowledges that the participants “can have enough
power to carve out spaces of control” in these performances
(2004: 150) and that individuals have capacity “to fashion their
own existence” as active agents more generally (2004: 151).
These ideas are elaborated by geographer, Mike Kesby (2005),
who contends that agency, self-reexivity and “empowerment”
are not attributes of individuals, but have to be maintained
through discursive and practical means. He argues that par-
ticipatory workshops may constitute temporary social arenas
in which it is possible to practice and perfom discourses and
activities leading to what he calls “empowered agency”:
Within them, normal frameworks of privilege are cir-
cumvented by the discourses and practices of equity,
free speech and collaboration. Participants ... can …
construct themselves as reexive agents and consti-
tute/represent their opinions and experiences to them-
selves, one another, and facilitators. Within this eld,
opportunities open up for people, rst, to disentangle
the complex web of everyday life … second, to decon-
struct norms and conventions; third, to reect on the
performativity of everyday life; and nally, to rehearse
performances for alternative realities. (Kesby 2005:
2055).
In summary, assumptions of a direct causal connection
between participation, “empowerment”, and sustainable de-
velopment seem out-dated in the light of the critique of the
underlying concepts of participation and development (see
Ferguson 2007). Nevertheless, the above discussion suggests
that activities performed and discourses engaged with in par-
ticipatory lm workshops can be both meaningful and ben-
ecial for the participants in various (albeit limited) ways.
If undertaken critically and with a carefully dened focus,
PV offers an interesting avenue of investigation for both aca-
demic and applied research. I thus borrowed from PV and
incorporated some of its methods into my participatory lm-
making.
PARTICIPATORY ETHNOGRAPHIC FILMMAKING:
CONTEXT
Between 2011 and 2013, I made three lms for “The Future
Okavango” (TFO) research project in villages situated in the
Okavango Basin. They were conceived and shot by villagers
during lm workshops I organized together with local pro-
ject members. The lms are 32 to 39 minutes long and con-
sist of observational footage, re-enactments and interviews.
All three lms deal with different aspects of natural resource
use. The rst lm, “Liparu Lyetu – Our Life” (Gruber et al.
2011), was made in Mashare, Northern Namibia in 2011. It
introduces techniques and problems related to farming, sh-
ing and gathering wild fruits. The seconds lm, “The Secret of
27
our Environment” (Gruber et al. 2013), was made in Seronga,
North-West Botswana in 2013 and deals with different aspects
of resource use but has an emphasis on the relationship be-
tween wildlife and tourism. The third lm “Honey” (Antónia
et al. 2013) was made in the Cusseque area in Central Angola
in 2014 and depicts local beekeeping practices and the use of
honey.
Following my project proposal, it was my task to make
lms together with “local stakeholders”. While the TFO pro-
ject worked with an inclusive “stakeholder” notion encom-
passing local decision makers, NGOs, governmental insti-
tutions and so forth, I imagined that local villagers would
be most directly affected by the project with the least say. I
therefore decided to make my lms with villagers exclusively.
From my previous experience, I expected that the decision-
making-process necessary to make a single lm together with
a group of people would be fruitful and result in a product
with a high degree of audience-identication. I thus decided
to make one lm in each country with a group of residents
of the respective research site. As with most of my previous
lms, I took the communities in which the lms would be
produced as my primary intended audience. These choices
formed the framework of my lming – all the rest would be
decided with my local co-workers and the participants of lm
production workshops I would recruit in each country. In
the following, I will focus on different steps of Participatory
Ethnographic Filmmaking along certain themes, which seem
most signicant to me.
LOCAL CO-WORKERS
In each of the three countries, I worked together closely with
local project members who had been employed and trained
to work as translators and research assistants. I needed those
co-workers for translations and for their cultural expertise
but made a central element of my work out of this necessity.
I shifted as much control as possible to my collaborators: we
conceived, organised and moderated each of the workshops to-
gether and I tried to step back and let them do the moderation
independently at times. However, his position within the re-
spective community and the different ways in which each col-
laborator interpreted his role changed the workshop dynam-
ics and outcomes considerably. During the rst workshop in
Namibia, my two collaborators Raphael Sinkumba and Robert
Mukuya came from the provincial capital Rundu, about 40 km
away from the actual research site. They had worked with me
on previous lms and acquired a lot of expertise in lmmak-
ing. In a way, they were outsiders too, and personally much
closer to me than to the workshop participants. Their position
was in between me and the villagers with whom they shared
their language and ethnic background. During the production,
we moderated the process mutually and tried to inuence the
group’s decisions as little as possible.
28
In Botswana the situation was different. I had never met
my co-worker Meshack Kwamovo before. He was native to
the town of Seronga, where the workshop took place, and
had close personal and kinship ties with the participants.
With no previous film experience, he utterly wanted to learn
how to make films, which he perceived as a professional
qualification that might be beneficial for his future career.
Meshack thus took part in the entire filming behind and in
front of the camera and became a driving element in the pro-
cess. His position was that of a moderator and participant
at the same time, which, I believe, made the resulting film
more engaged and messy. During the third film, I found my-
self in yet another situation. My co-moderator Miguel Hilar-
io was neither from the villages in which we worked, nor did
he speak the local language Chokwe. We had to communi-
cate with the workshop participants, who perceived Miguel
as an outsider, through the linguae francae Portuguese and
Umbundu. In-depth discussions, which had formed the core
of the two previous film productions, were impossible. In
order to deal with this situation, we adopted the classical
role of anthropologists, trying to understand what was go-
ing on around us by watching and taking part in activities.
The resulting film is more exploratory than the others and
probably the most visual. These examples show how collabo-
ration with local co-workers was an essential aspect of my
approach. Their impact on the dynamics within the group
and the outcome of the entire project changed considerably
depending on their personality and their position in relation
to the work-shop participants.
CO-MODERATOR RAPHAEL
SINKUMBA IN MASHARE,
NAMIBIA
29
FILMMAKING AS A RESOURCE
Together with my co-workers, I recruited between four
and seven workshop participants for each lm. Our aim was
to organise a democratic selection process leading to a bal-
anced team with participants of different gender, age, social
background and with representatives from different locations
within each research site (which often consisted of several vil-
lages). However, certainly reinforced by our decision to com-
pensate workshop participants nancially, the recruitment
turned out to be extremely tricky – especially in rural Namibia
and Angola where so-called “traditional leaders” play an im-
portant role in the social and political life. In Namibia, the
participants were selected through consensual decisions dur-
ing village meetings. These were however dominated by the
respective head(wo)man – powerful political leaders intro-
duced by the South African administration (d’Engelbronner-
Kolff 2001).
In Angola, the Sobas appointed the workshop participants
more or less directly. Our idea of recruiting workshop partici-
pants through a democratic process during village meetings
only succeeded in Botswana, where comparable kinds of selec-
tion processes were common practice, for example in the case
of casual labour offered by the government or NGOs, and where
political processes seemed to be more transparent. While lo-
cal decision-makers tried to manoeuvre family members and
friends into our workshop in both Namibia and Angola, we
experienced some resentments and rumours in Mashare, Na-
mibia. This culminated when one person who apparently felt
excluded, secretly told people not to attend our nal village
screening and personally discredited one of out participants.
Filmmaking denitely was the contested resource with poten-
tial for conict, anticipated by Terence Turner in the context of
indigenous media (Turner 1992, 1991). Material aspects such as
the catering we provided during the workshop and the nan-
cial compensation we paid the participants after the completion
of the lms thereby certainly played a role. However, unlike
anthropologist Peter Anton Zoettl, who believes that the par-
ticipants of research and development projects “rarely see any
direct benet (for themselves) in the doing of anthropologists
and social activists” and mostly participate in order to “benet
from the monetary by-products of scientic research or human-
itarian action” (Zoettl 2012: 5), my experience suggest a much
broader notion of lmmaking as a form of social, cultural and
political capital. While the participants themselves portrayed
their engagement as an interesting personal experience and an
important vocational training, I believe that participation in
our project was also deployed to enhance an individual’s posi-
tion in his or her community (see Turner 1992).
I assume that some of the various stakeholders of any par-
ticipatory lm project will try to inuence the selection process
according to their purposes, irrespective of the geographical or
cultural setting. As long as lmmaking offers benets to pos-
30
sible participants – nancial, political, personal or otherwise
– it has the potential to raise or reinforce conicts. In order
to minimise this unwelcome side-effect, more public and more
transparent procedures should be applied. This would make
powerful actors – including the researchers – more account-
able. A more diverse mixture of participants within the produc-
tion team could be achieved by implementing the recruitment
according to a stricter matrix of selection criteria such as age,
gender and social status, amongst others.
FILM TRAINING AND THE WORKSHOP SPACE
We started each workshop with an introduction to camera
and sound recording as well as different camera exercises. I
taught within the conventions of observational lmmaking and
made use of peer-to-peer training and other methods I used
for teaching ethnographic lmmaking to university students in
Germany. At the same time my co-workers and I moderated the
process of conceiving the lm. We began very broadly by asking
the workshop participants what they would like to make a lm
about within the broader topic of the natural environment.8 As
most villagers depended heavily on natural resources for their
livelihoods, they unanimously decided to make these the focus
of their lms. The workshop participants then chose different
activities to be depicted in the lms, they acquired protagonists
and interviewees, devised questionnaires and developed pro-
duction schedules. These parallel processes took place within
two to three weeks before the actual shooting.
Learning how to operate the camera and how to lm was
generally seen as the most important aspect of the training.
However, the participants developed diverse interests and
acquired different skills such as acting, interviewing or com-
posing and singing a song. While some of the groups found it
CAMERA TRAINING
IN CUSSEQUE, ANGOLA
8 In Angola, I decided to
take a dierent approach,
as I found it cinematically
interesting to make a
more focussed film.
A TFO colleague
conducting
anthropological research
in the area had told
me that bees were an
important means of
subsistence and cash
income. I therefore asked
the participants if they
would like to make a film
honey. The participants
confirmed its significance
and decided to make
a film about dierent
aspects of beekeeping.
31
important that the different tasks of lmmaking were distrib-
uted equally, other groups were less rigid about this issue and
each participant took over his or her preferred part. While we
made use of roughly the same approach in each country, the
outcomes are strikingly different, depending on the workshop
participants’ and my co-workers’ differing intentions and the
way we all negotiated the process differently during each work-
shop. One important factor was my increasing capability to “let
go” and experiment in a playful manner.
It was our aim to moderate the process of lmmaking in a
way that each participant found meaningful and felt adequately
represented. The participants highlighted the intense discus-
sions and negotiations across gaps of age, gender, as well as
social and cultural background, as an extraordinary experi-
ence, supporting Kesby’s notion of participatory workshops
as “empowering performances” (2005). However, while Kesby
believes that in order to render their effects sustainable, the
associated discourses and practices have to be established in
everyday space, for example through establishing long-term
and self-sustaining social groups. I want to argue that even a
temporally limited engagement has a positive impact on the
participants’ situation and their personal development. In the
following paragraph, I want to discuss the act of shooting as a
central element of participatory lmmaking.
COLLABORATIVE SHOOTING
As I outlined above, the workshop participants perceived
lming as the most important activity and rapidly appropriated
the technology. Consequently the lms discussed here were
shot almost entirely by villagers with no previous lming ex-
perience. The lmic approach varied considerably within each
lm and across the different lms. On the one hand, each par-
ticipant used the camera differently and developed a different
style of shooting. More importantly, the workshop participants,
my local co-workers and I interpreted and negotiated our roles
differently in each lm. In order to give an idea of the different
forms of collaboration I will briey describe each lm.
The first film, “Liparu Lyetu – Our Life” produced in Namibia,
takes a somewhat romantic view on resource related activities
perceived as “traditional” and “local” – such as traditional
shing, millet farming and the collection of wild fruits. The
workshop participants had asked neighbours and friends to
demonstrate their activities, while they operated the camera
and directed the lm. Except for an introductory scene, the
lmmakers remain invisible behind the camera. The partici-
pants thus adopted the role of researchers and documentar-
ians, while my local co-workers and I followed and supervised
their work with as little interference as possible. This shift
in roles was maybe most evident when the lmmakers inter-
viewed local politicians and bureaucrats who were extremely
irritated to be interviewed and lmed by local villagers instead
of the outside expert.
32
In the resulting lm, farmers are portrayed as proud and
knowledgeable experts of their environment, while the local
elites seem more than disconnected and misplaced. While the
participants included the interviews to valorise their lm, their
juxtaposition can be read as critique of the existing power rela-
tions.
“The Secret of Our Environment” produced in Botswana in
2012, is much more overtly political. While the lm rst intro-
duces “traditional” resource use, such as shing and gathering
wild fruits, the lm’s main focus are the conicts in a social
arena dominated by wildlife, tourism and farming. Wildlife
and the natural environment are communal resources in Bot-
swana, but international players of the tourist industry make
the biggest share of the income through tourism in Seronga. A
number of villagers earn small wages as tour-guides or service
staff in one of the surrounding lodges, but most locals work as
subsistence farmers and face problems as elephants and other
game regularly destroy their elds. Signicantly, the work-
shop participants decided not to lm the “real” actors involved
in the business, such as lodge owners or tour operators, but
to re-enact signicant situations and discussions through im-
provised acting. Most of the lm shows the workshop partici-
pants following their regular jobs as farmers, shermen and
tour guides – however in self-ironic and somewhat theatri-
cal performances facilitated by the introduction of a ctional
layer, much as in ethnoctional lmmaking. At other times,
these idealized self-representations slip into a more serious
tone. In one particular sequence, the participants asked me
(acting as a tourist), to raise the question of income dispari-
ties. The question was then elaborated through an improvised
discussion of four Botswanan workshop participants. These
re-enacted sequences are juxtaposed with a number of inter-
views with politicians and ofceholders, on the same issue of
uneven distribution of income through natural resources. The
same subject matter was thus discussed in two different modes
– ctional and realist. At rst, I was surprised that the partici-
SHOOTING IN SERONGA,
BOTSWANA
33
pants were so overtly critical towards their political representa-
tives while they preferred to discuss other aspects of this issue
through a ctional framework. Later, I realised that the partici-
pants discussed the issue with outsiders such as politicians and
bureaucrats on realist terms, while they preferred the ctional
framework to negotiate the situation within the village.
During this lm, the roles and hierarchies within the work-
shop were more uid than in the other two lms. Firstly, my
local co-moderator was simultaneously an active member of
the production team. Secondly, the workshop participants de-
cided to re-enact the activities to be lmed themselves. Their
constant shifting from behind to the front of the camera blurred
the boundaries between observers and observed. Thirdly, as
mentioned above, the participants asked me to act for them in
one of their plays, challenging the conventional hierarchy be-
tween workshop facilitator and participants more thoroughly.
This had important consequences for the workshop dynamics
and the way the participants related to the product. The sig-
nicance of changing roles and the researchers’ acting in front
of the camera has been discussed by geographer Sara Kindon
in the context of a PV workshop she organised during her re-
search:
Such movements of our bodies behind and in front of
the camera … symbolize a degree of destabilization
of conventional power relations in the research rela-
tionship and of particular claims to the unquestioned
transparency of the image. As a result, these move-
ments have facilitated a more explicit recognition of
the agency and situatedness of all participants in the
politics of knowledge production associated with the
project’s focus, and have contributed to a deeper lev-
el of trust and understanding within the research part-
nership itself. (Kindon 2003: 146f).
“Honey”, produced in Angola in 2013, was yet a different
experience, mostly because my co-worker Miguel Hilario and
I were struggling to communicate verbally with the partici-
pants of our workshop. Miguel originated from a region a few
hundred kilometres away and had only recently moved to a
town near the research site. He spoke Nganguela, Umbundu
and Portuguese, but not the local language Chokwe. While
we managed to communicate some practical issues with the
workshop participants, elaborate discussions on the form
and content of the film, which had been a central element of
the previous workshops, were impossible. When I realised
this problem we used images as an additional means of ex-
change. For example, the participants made quite elaborate
drawings of activities they wanted to film. However, while
the participants of the previous workshops had perceived
the extended discussions and negotiations as a new and en-
riching experience, it was rather frustrating for all parties in
Chitembo.
34
I therefore asked the participants to show us what they
wanted to make the lm about. We took a long walk through
the forest and the participants showed Miguel and me their
beehives and demonstrated to us how they work. It was de-
cided that Quintas, one of the workshop participants who was
an experienced beekeeper, should demonstrate the making of
a traditional beehive and the harvesting of honey for the lm.
Bino, a second participant who also had a lot of beekeeping
experience and therefore knew all the different steps, proved
to be an extremely talented camera-operator. During the lm-
ing the two men connected perfectly, resulting in some eth-
nographically dense observational material. The respective
sequence rst shows the beekeeper moving easily through
the forest, serving himself of all the different materials need-
ed for constructing a hive. Its production is then displayed
in great detail: skilled hands and simple tools constructing a
sophisticated piece of craft. The lm represents this embod-
ied knowledge perfectly and is a ne example of audio-visual
ethnography.
Remarkably, the Angolan participants also negotiated their
relationship with the researchers not verbally but by improvi-
sation and play. When shooting a scene demonstrating the use
of honey for cooking, the two women performing the activity,
told Miguel and me during the shooting that they wanted to
lm us tasting the dish they just had prepared. While the par-
ticipants of the Botswanan lm discussed their decision to in-
clude me as an actor prior to the shooting, the Angolan partici-
pants improvised us into the story during the shooting itself.
To our surprise, we found out only during the editing (with a
translator) that Adelina and Fátima were already talking about
us long before they told us to become a part of the lm. By talk-
ing (rather patronizingly) about us (and not with us) they were
forcefully positioning us as Others.
The three lms described here exemplify different ways in
which participatory lming can extend and enhance the per-
formative space constituted by participatory workshops (Ko-
thari 2004; Kesby 2005). While the medium of lm has been
portrayed as inappropriate or limiting for non-Westerners
(Faris 1992; Weiner 1997), other scholars have pointed out how
people from all over the world successfully appropriated the
medium for their own purposes (Turner 1995, 1992; Ginsburg
1995, 1991; Flores 2009). My own experience suggests that the
entire process of lmmaking with its inherent elements of joint
decision-making, improvising and acting, constitutes a unique
space to negotiate and construct meaning in collaboration be-
tween researchers, workshop participants and outside actors.
The act of shooting is a central element, promoting improvisa-
tion, play, risk and chance – aspects that Jean Rouch found
so important for calling forth an “inspired performance”. The
introduction of a ctional framework creates an ambiguity be-
tween ction and reality that facilitates the acting and attens
the hierarchies within the research and lming arena.
35
COLLABORATIVE EDITING
The basic idea of these lms was to show aspects of re-
source use and talk to people that the workshop participants
found interesting. Our lming was inspired by ethnographic
lmmaking, combining observation and ctionalisation with
informal conversations and interviews. As the limited time-
frame made it impossible to teach the participants the edit-
ing software, I did the editing together with my respective
co-worker(s) and under continuous feedback by the group.9
My editing was based on the conventions of continuity edit-
ing and self-contained sequences. The local co-workers and
I usually made a pre-selection of material from the entire
footage and presented it to the group. In the case of obser-
vational footage and re-enactments we made rough cuts to
give an idea of how a certain activity would look like; in the
case of dialogues and interviews we excluded the redundant
or incomprehensible material. We would then meet with the
group, view the material and discuss with the participants
which activities, dialogues and interview extracts should be
edited into the lm and which could be left out. Usually these
choices were based on consensual decisions, in some cases
we organised a vote. We would then implement the partici-
pants’ editorial decisions in the further editing and meet a
few days later to continue this process of selection and mon-
tage. The overall narrative was agreed upon later during the
editing process and we usually had to lm some additional
material to ll gaps, such as introductions or a song for the
lm’s ending. The editing was framed by the conventions of
documentary realism and ethnographic lm as well as my
personal preferences. At the same time, the workshop partici-
pants made important editorial choices. I want to argue that
the way we implemented the editing constituted a collabora-
tive process of meaning making.
PARTICIPATORY RECEPTION
Each lm workshop ended with several screenings the
participants organised in their respective villages. The feed-
back of community members was generally positive and initi-
ated numerous discussions. At the end of the project, when
all lms were complete, we organized village screenings of all
three lms in several locations of the research sites in Angola,
Namibia and Botswana. The audience reactions during these
screenings strongly suggest that the viewers were able to re-
late their own situation to the ones represented in the lms
from the neighbouring countries. Apparently the images were
able to convey a sense of common identity across gaps of na-
tionality, language and ethnic background. The lm screen-
ings in the presence of the lmmakers and protagonists of-
fered the opportunity for discussion (Stadler 2003; Englehart
2003). I would like to argue that the powerful performances
represented in these lms are extended to the audience during
their reception.
9 In Angola we hired
a young man fluent in
Chokwe and Portuguese
to translate and give his
cultural expertise during
the editing.
36
OUTLOOK
One might perceive this kind of lmmaking as a form of
“pseudo participation” – as the impact on the overall re-
search and the people’s living conditions was clearly limited.
However, I want to take a positive outlook. First and fore-
most, the workshop participants perceived the lmmaking
as an important and worthwhile experience and local com-
munities saw the lms as one of the more important outputs
of the project. On a broader level, the lms visualise rural
dwellers, which might otherwise stay invisible - within the
research project and the broader public. The lms portray
them as experts of their environment and as active and mul-
tifaceted personalities. More importantly, representatives
of marginalised communities largely decided the form and
content of these lms and had leading roles in their practi-
cal production. Finally, I understand these lms as a form of
anthropological enquiry.
Despite the numerous overlaps, there are a number of
methodological and epistemological differences between eth-
nographic lm and media made by non-anthropological lm-
makers. Explorative in nature, ethnographic lms “seek to in-
terpret one society for another” (MacDougall 1992:96).
COLLABORATIVE EDITING IN
SERONGA, BOTSWANA
37
Informed by anthropological theory and based on ethno-
graphic eldwork, the genre usually (but not exclusively) rep-
resents an outsider’s view of the culture or group under con-
sideration (see for example MacDougall 1995; Ruby 2000).
Indigenous lm and other “subject-generated media” (Ruby
2000) are self-representations primarily aimed at members of
the same society or culture (see Crawford 1995; Ginsburg 1995).
These lms are usually predicative and codifying rather than
exploratory, often contributing to the negotiation of cultural
identity (Ruby 2000:196). Participatory Ethnographic Film-
making is not aimed at enabling individuals or groups to make
their own lms, such as indigenous media or the recent work
of David MacDougal (MacDougall et al. 2013). The lms I de-
scribed here combine anthropological and local perspectives in
a process of transcultural collaboration interesting and mean-
ingful for local, broad and anthropological audiences alike. Par-
ticipatory Ethnographic Filmmaking may be applied in a whole
range of contexts. Literally handing the camera over to research
participants is one of its principles utterly changing the process
of lmmaking and consequently its outcome.
REFERENCES
ARNSTEIN, Sherry
2007 A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In The City
Reader. Stout, F. & R. T. LeGates (eds). New York
& London: Routledge. Pp. 244-255.
AUFDERHEIDE, Patricia
1995 The Video in the Villages Project: Videomaking
with and by Brazilian Indians. Visual Anthropology
Review, 11(2): 83-93.
FILM SCREENING IN MASHARE,
NAMIBIA
38
BRADEN, Sue
1998 Video for Development. A Casebook from Vietnam.
Oxford: Oxfam.
CLEAVER, Frances
1999 Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory
Approaches to Development. Journal
of International Development, 11: 597-612.
CLIFFORD, James - MARCUS, George E. eds.
1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics
of Ethnography. University of California Press.
Comité du Film Éthnographique
2016 Regards Comparés. comitedulmethnographique.
com/regards-compares/retrieved on 15.04.2016.
COOKE, Bill - KOTHARI, Uma
2004 The Case for Participation as Tyranny.
In Participation: The New Tyranny? Cooke, B. & U.
Kothari (eds). London & New York: Zed Books.
Pp. XII, 207 S.
CRAWFORD, Peter Ian
1995 Nature and Advocacy in Ethnographic Film:
The Case of Kayapó Imagery. In Advocacy
and Indignous Filmmaking. Philippsen, H. H. & B.
Markussen(eds). Højbjerg: Intervention Press.
Pp. 7-22.
D’ENGELBRONNER-KOLFF, Franka Marina
2001 A Web of Legal Cultures: Dispute Resolution
Processes Amongst the Sambyu of Northern Namibia.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
DURINGTON, Matthew
2009 Participatory and Applied Visual Anthropology with
the Botswana San. In Visual Interventions:
Applied Visual Anthropology. Studies in Applied
Anthropology, Vol. 4. Pink, S. (ed.). Oxford:
Berghahn. Pp. 191-207.
ELDER, Sarah
1995 Collaborative Filmmaking: An Open Space for
Making Meaning, a Moral Ground for Ethnographic
Film. Visual Anthropology Review, 11(2): 94-101.
ELISABETH, Catharina - WANG, Arfwedson - WRIGHT,
Reni J. HOPE, Siren - WAAGE, Trond
2012 Ungdomsblikk: Selvreeksivt Filmkurs Som
Terapeutisk Metode. Tidsskrift for Norsk
psykologforening, 49(9): 861-869.
39
ENGLEHART, Lucinda
2003 Media Activism in the Screening Room:
The Signcance of Viewing Locations, Facilitation
and Audience Dynamics in the Reception of HIV/
AIDS Films in South Africa. Visual Anthropology
Review, 19(1-2): 73-85.
FARIS, James
1992 Anthropological Transparency: Film, Representation
and Politics. In Film as Ethnography. Crawford,
P. I. & D. Turton (eds). Manchester: Manchester
University Press. Pp. 171-182.
FERGUSON, James
2007 The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development”,
Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
FLORES, Carlos
2009 Sharing Anthropology: Collaborative Video
Experiences among Maya Film-Makers in
Post-War Guatemala. In Visual Interventions:
Applied Visual Anthropology. Studies in Applied
Anthropology. Vol. 4. Pink, S. (ed). Oxford:
Berghahn. Pp. 209-223.
FOUCAULT, Michel
1995 Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
New York: Vintage Books.
2010 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings 1972-1977. Harlow: Pearson Education.
FRANTZ, Jonathan
2007 Using Participatory Video to Enrich Planning
Processes. Planning Theory & Practice, 8(1): 103-107.
FREIRE, Paulo
1977 Pädagogik Der Unterdrückten: Bildung Als Praxis
Der Freiheit. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
GIDDENS, Anthony
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory
of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
GINSBURG, Faye
1991 Indigenous Media: Faustian Contract or Global
Village? Cultural Anthropology, 6(1): 92-112.
1995 The Parallax Effect: The Impact of Aboriginal Media
on Ethnographic Film. Visual Anthropology Review,
11(2): 64-76.
2011 Native Intelligence: A Short History of Debates on
Indigenous Media and Ethnographic Film. In Made to
40
Be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual
Anthropology. Ruby, J. & M. Banks (eds). Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press.
GINSBURG, Faye - ABU-LUGHOD, Lila - LARKIN, Brian
2002 Introduction. In Media Worlds : Anthropology on
New Terrain. Ginsburg, F.,L. Abu-Lughod
& B. Larkin (eds). Berkeley: University of California
Press. Pp. 1-36.
GOFFMAN, Erving
2010 Wir Alle Spielen Theater: Die Selbstdarstellung
Im Alltag. München: Piper.
GRIMSHAW, Anna
2001 The Ethnographer’s Eye: Ways of Seeing in Modern
Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
GRUBER, Martin
2015 Liparu Lyetu - Our Life. Participatory Ethnographic
Filmmaking in Applied Contexts. Bremen:
University of Bremen.
HENKEL, Heiko - STIRRAT, Roderick
2004 Participation as Spiritual Duty; Empowerment
as Secular Subjection. In Participation: The New
Tyranny? Cooke, B. & U. Kothari (eds). London:
Zed Books. Pp. 168-184.
HENLEY, Paul
2004 Putting Film to Work: Observational Cinema as
Practical Ethnography. In Working Images: Visual
Research and Representation in Ethnography
Pink, S., L. Kürti & A. I. Afonso (eds). London & New
York: Routledge. Pp. 109-130.
2009 The Adventure of the Real: Jean Rouch and
the Craft of Ethnographic Cinema. Chicago; London:
University of Chicago Press.
JØRGENSEN, Anne Mette
2007 Filmmaking as Ethnographic Dialogues: Rouch’s
Family of “Scoundrels” in Niger.
Visual Anthropology, 20(1): 57-73.
KESBY, Mike
2005 Retheorizing Empowerment-through-Participation
as a Performance in Space: Beyond Tyranny
to Transformation. Signs, 30(4): 2037-2065.
KINDON, Sara
2003 Participatory Video in Geographic Research:
A Feminist Practice of Looking? Area, 35(2).
41
KOTHARI, Uma
2004 Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory
Development. In Participation : The New Tyranny?
Cooke, B. & U. Kothari (eds). London: Zed Books.
Pp. 139-152.
LOIZOS, Peter
1993 Innovation in Ethnographic Film from Innocence
to Self-Consciousness, 1955-85. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
LUNCH, Nick - LUNCH, Chris
2006 Insight into Participatory Video. A Handbook
or the Field. Oxford: Insightshare.
MACDOUGALL, David
1987 Media Friend or Media Foe? Visual Anthropology,
1(1): 54-58.
1992 Complicities of Style. In Film as Ethnography.
Crawford, P. I. & D. Turton (eds). Manchester:
Manchester University Press. Pp. 90-98.
1995 Beyond Observational Cinema. In Principles of
Visual Anthropology. Hockings, P. (ed). Berlin
& New York de Gruyter. Pp. 115-133.
MENTER, Harriet - ROA, Maria Cecilia - BECCERA, Omar
Felipe - ROA, Clara - CELEMIN, Wilson
2006 Using Participatory Video to Develop Youth
Leadership Skills in Colombia. Participatory
Learning and Action, 55 (December): 107-114.
MICHAELS, Eric
1986 The Aboriginal Invention of Television in Central
Australia. 1982-1986: Australian Inst. of Aboriginal
Studies.
MISTRY, Jayalaxshmi - BERARDI, Andrea
2011 The Challenges and Opportunities of Participatory
Video in Geographical Research: Exploring
Collaboration with Indigenous Communities in the
North Rupununi, Guyana. Area: 1-7.
MOSSE, David
2004 ‘People’s Knowledge’, Participation and Patronage:
Operations and Representations in Rural
Development. In Participation: The New Tyranny?
Cooke, B. & U. Kothari (eds). London: Zed Books.
Pp. 16-35.
NICHOLS, Bill
1991 The Ethnographer’s Tale. Visual Anthropology
Review, 7(2): 31-47.
42
NIGG, Heinz - WADE, Graham
1980 Community Media: Community Communication
in the United Kingdom - Video, Local T. V., Film
and Photography. Zürich: Regenbogen-Verlag.
OAKLEY, Peter
1991 Projects with People: The Practice of Participation
in Rural Development. Geneva: International Labour
Ofce.
PINK, Sarah
2006 The Future of Visual Anthropology: Engaging the
Senses. Routledge.
2009 Applied Visual Anthropology. Social Interventions
and Visual Methodologies. In Visual Interventions:
Applied Visual Anthropology. Pink, S. (ed). Oxford:
Berghahn. Pp. 3-28.
ROUCH, Jean
2003 Ciné-Ethnography. University of Minnesota Press.
RUBY, Jay
2000 Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film &
Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
RUSSELL, Wendy A. - WICKSON, Fern - CAREW, Anna L.
2008 Transdisciplinarity: Context, Contradictions and
Capacity. Futures, 40(5): 460-472.
SJÖBERG, Johannes
2008 Ethnoction: Drama as a Creative Research Practice
in Ethnographic Film. Journal of Media Practice,
9(3): 229-242.
2009 Ethnoction and Beyond: The Legacy of Projective
Improvisation in Ethnographic Filmmaking.
Paper Presented at the International Conference
‘a Knowledge Beyond Text’ at Centre Pompidou in
Paris, November 2009: www.comite-lm-ethno.net/
colloque-jean-rouch/textes-colloque-JR/Sjoberg.pdf
retrieved on 16.10.2011.
STADLER, Jane
2003 Narrative, Understanding and Identication in Steps
for the Future: HIV/AIDS Documentaries.
Visual Anthropology Review, 19(1-2): 86-101.
STOLLER, Paul
1992 The Cinematic Griot: The Ethnography of Jean
Rouch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
TURNER, Terence
1991 The Social Dynamics of Video Media in an Indigenous
Society: The Cultural Meaning and the Personal
Politics of Video-Making in Kayapo Communities.
Visual Anthropology Review, 7(2): 68-76.
43
1992 Deant Images: The Kayapo Appropriation of Video.
Anthropology Today, 8(6): 5-16.
1995 Representation, Collaboration and Mediation in
Contemporary Ethnographic and Indigenous Media.
Visual Anthropology Review, 11(2): 102-106.
VERBA, Sidney - NIE, Norman H.
1972 Participation in America: Political Democracy and
Social Equality. New York: Harper, Row.
WEINBERGER, Eliot
1994 The Camera People. In Visualizing Theory. Selected
Essays from V.A.R. 1990-1994. Taylor, L. (ed).
New York & London: Routledge. Pp. 3-26.
WEINER, James F.
1997 Televisualist Anthropology: Representation,
Aesthetics, Politics. Current Anthropology,
38(2): 197-235.
WHITE, Shirley A.
2003a Participatory Video: A Process That Transforms the
Self and the Other. In Participatory Video:
Images That Transform and Empower. White, S. A.
(ed). London: Sage Publications. Pp. 63-101.
2003b Participatory Video: Images That Transform and
Empower. London: Sage Publications.
WICKSON, Fern - CAREW, Anna L. - RUSSELL, A. Wendy
2006 Transdisciplinary Research: Characteristics,
Quandaries and Quality. Futures, 38: 1046-1059.
WORTH, Sol - ADAIR, John
1972 Through Navajo Eyes: An Exploration in Film
Communication and Anthropology. Bloomington,
London: Indiana University Press.
ZOETTL, Peter Anton
2012 Images of Culture: Participatory Video,
Identity and Empowerment. International Journal
of Cultural Studies, published online 3 August 2012:
DOI: 10.1177/1367877912452498.
FILMOGRAPHY
ANTÓNIA, Adelina - GRUBER, Martin - HILARIO, Miguel
Sachilulo - JOB, Bino Henriques - JOSÉ, Fátima
QUINTAS, Evaristo
2013 Huchi - Honey. 39 mins. Angola, Germany:
University of Bremen.
44
FLAHERTY, Robert
1922 Nanuk Der Eskimo. 78 mins. USA: Arte Edition.
GRUBER, Martin
2006 The Future of Visual Anthropology. 15 mins.
Germany: intervention press.
GRUBER, Martin - HAMUTENYA, Clementine Shimbumburu
IMMANUEL, Thobias K. - KAPUMBURU, Veronica Ngundi
KWANDU, Samwel T. - MASHARE, Johannes - MUKUYA,
Robert - SIMATA, Angeline K. - SINKUMBA, Raphael
ZANGATA, Christone
2011 Liparu Lyetu - Our Life. 32 mins. Namibia,
Germany: The Future Okavango.
GRUBER, Martin - KWAMOVO, Meshack - MARUNGU,
Gomotsegang - MOEZE, Chungudika - MOFUNDIKWA,
Rombe - MORUTI, Keoratile - MOZUMBI, Mozumbi
WAMANA, Gongwe
2013 The Secret of Our Environment. 34 mins. Botswana,
Germany: University of Bremen.
MACDOUGALL, David - SHIVHARE, Ravi - SINGH, Anshu
KASHYAP, Aniket Kumar - DALSUS, Shikha Kumar
2013 Delhi at Eleven. 82 mins. Royal Anthropological
Institute.
PRÖPPER, Michael - GRUBER, Martin
2007 Wiza Wetu! - Our Forest. 53 mins. Namibia,
Germany: BIOTA Africa.
ROUCH, Jean
1959 Moi Un Noir. 73 mins. Ivory Coast: Editions
Montparnasse.
1967 Jaguar. 88 mins. Niger, Ghana: Editions
Montparnasse.
SCHMIEDEL, Ute - GRUBER, Martin - CHRISTIAAN,
Reginald - ISAACKS, Richard - KOTZE, Donna - LOT,
Marianna - MTULENI, Snake Vilo - MUKUYA, Roberth
PIETERS, Weynand - SWARTBOOI, Jeanette
SWARTBOOI, Sebedeus
2009 Bridging the Gap. 20 mins. South Africa, Germany:
BIOTA Africa.
