The ethics and obligations of long‐term ethnographic relationships: revelatory moments and the concept of solidarity

This article reflects on an ethical and revelatory moment in the development of my long-term fieldwork relationships with people Lihir Islands Papua New Guinea. Ethnographic research globally is now shaped through formal processes review, requirements for informed consent, privacy, consideration harm beneficence. Researchers then have to put these procedures into practice, often encountering need weigh competing principles, particularly when unforeseen events occur. Reflexivity has been argued be crucial occasions. Yet both codes reflexivity fall short managing relational implications field relationships. suggests that concept solidarity as theorized recently bioethics may helpful, discernment three layers relationship. What responsibilities might we anthropologists work go beyond procedural ethics? And how do moments such one described this shape ongoing research? Éthique et obligations dans les relations ethnographiques de longue durée : révélation solidarité. Résumé L'autrice cet mène une réflexion sur un éthique révélateur le développement d'une relation ethnographique au long cours avec des habitants Îles Lihir, en Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée. La recherche mondiale est aujourd'hui modelée par processus formels d’évaluation éthique, exigences consentement éclairé, respect la vie privée, prise compte risques bénéfices. Une fois ces satisfaites, chercheurs doivent mettre procédures pratique, ce qui oblige souvent à balance principes éthiques concurrents, notamment lorsque surviennent événements imprévus. On a pu dire que réflexivité était cruciale telles occasions, mais ni ne permettent gérer relationnelles terrain. Le présent suggère solidarité, tel qu'il été récemment théorisé bioéthique, pourrait être utile, particulier pour discerner trois strates relation. Au-delà l’éthique procédurale, quelles pourraient nos responsabilités, tant qu'anthropologues, vis-à-vis gens lesquels nous travaillons ? Et comment tels ceux décrits modèlent-ils notre terrain Late October 2012, I received news informant, colleague, ‘sister’ had suddenly died site Guinea (PNG). Christine Zken1 first Lihirian teach me Lir language arrived 1997. She accompanied out northernmost island group, Mahur, trip. It was Mahur became main doctoral twelve months, lived her extended family there. When travelled Samo village largest family. During early fieldwork, adopted clan, position sister. Later, worked two years Community Relations Researcher Management Company (LMC), which managed gold mine Islands, valued colleague. Visits during 2011 2012 included time Hence death at age 51 personally deeply upsetting. close informant face from distance Australia. quickly arranged send money contacts funeral mourning period, yet not sure precisely what expected me. Had time, would carefully guided actions, supported by Christine's made decision soon could brief visit while period still continuing. able delayed week presence morgue Medical Centre built context mining development, allowed little arrangements. However, no visa, possessed clearance limited HIV/AIDS or maternal health: there arrange either visa review visit. choice Visitor's private trip rather than researcher. after funeral, stayed just over week. That change course understandings reshape realize common interpersonal violence Lihir. asked write about gender relations, highlighting concerned place so. How should participants who also versus institutional those PNG state? (Trigger, Forsey & Merck 2012) ‘ethically important’ (Guillemin Gillam 2004). uses example case study explore linked ideas: first, deaths interlocutors field, they occur relationships, can turn lead new trajectories; and, second, responding – conduct anthropological are value. While it suggested crucial, this, too, insufficient. argue aspects well anticipated alone. Instead, suggest employing better understand ethnography assist thinking dilemmas. In order examine ideas, engages bodies literature ethics brought extensive conversation another. Structurally, means opening sections somewhat longer usual, before moves ethnographic discussion. From here, describes developing Lihirians many commitment, return visits. These changes simply due increased spent them. Rather, deepening commitments changing status young woman older married mother, particular context, productively understood differing forms solidarity, shifting ‘standing up for’ with’ Lihirians. Ethics anthropology refer systems. recent years, wealth material published debating nature evaluation judgement (Mattingly 2014) based everyday life (Keane 2014; Lambek 2010) religious systems morality (Robbins 2016). Models practice uphold versions correct conduct, sometimes referred morality, codified rules (sometimes called deontological ethics), form back Kant contemporary Throop 2018). contrast, termed virtue ethics, Aristotle, focuses more closely attempts become certain kind person reflection freedom (Laidlaw 2002). anthropologist goes different definitions entangled. There clear agreement must ethical; narrowly conceived terms methodological concerns, broadly participants, funders, ‘field critical enquiry’ (Harper Jiménez 2005: 10). much debate achieve regard ethnography. Both specific histories embedded country- institution-specific frameworks (see, e.g., Ndebele, Mwaluko, Kruger, Oukem-Boyer Zimba Pels 2000; Wynn Israel all locations, debates social science projects (Schrag 2011). Within Australia, university boards (Human Research Committees HRECs) current National Statement Ethical Conduct Human (NHMRC The developed Health Council (NHMRC) 1966, drawing upon developments shifts international arena, Nuremburg Code, Helsinki Declaration, Belmont Report United States 1979 (Dodds Pieper Thomson 2013; Schrag Australia under regime HRECs powerful instruments scrutiny A large-scale (Wynn 2011) experiences across States, Canada, Zealand found ethnographers considerable ambivalence towards processes. majority (56 per cent) believed procedure protected qualified assess research, did improve committee intruded areas were its mandate 2011: 100). Simpson (2011) noted require specifying parsing ways possible research. Processes critiqued universalist assumptions is, even colonial arrogant positioning (Hodge Kovats-Bernat 2002; Mattingly 2005; Difficulties translation notions cross-culturally raised, committees’ Some commentators voiced concerns proliferation reach audit culture shaping practices (Simpson 2011; Strathern 2000). And, broadly, promoting internalization compliance bureaucracy core moral value shapes us see ourselves ‘researchers’ others ‘research subjects’, as, example, experts colleagues (Jacobs Riles 2007). Alongside legislation boards, associations their own code guiding researchers. operate another layer prompting issues maintaining beneficence (Aagaard-Hansen Johansen 2008). association-based history, documented (American Anthropological Association, AAA) Kingdom (Association Social Anthropologists, ASA). proved unenforceable AAA, lack sanctions regulatory force ASA (Mills 2003), (Bell Sarrett 2014), but provide guidance where allegiances lie. case, bound Australian Society, largely replicated guidelines NHMRC focus confidentiality. avoiding intrusion, working collaboratively, giving credit people's knowledge (Australian Society 2012); however, provisions manage felt participants. Guillemin note planned, ethically reviewed, codes, remains unpredictable, leading important moments’: ‘the difficult, subtle, usually unpredictable situations arise doing research’ (2004: 262). Their provides very useful distinction between carried via application according actual answer reflexivity. They acknowledge connected instead seen ensure rigour process writing. Quite associated positioning, rapport generally (Glowczewski, Henry Otto 2013). implementing ‘reflexive continuous interpretation, methods data researcher, context’ 275). Continual thus practice. point, echo 2014): notion indicates limits approaches importance broader conceptions Despite understanding involves unexpected, propose bounded controlled ideally predictable some extent. Many key questions researchers universities apply imply anticipate will locations situations.2 Each treated entirely project clearly specified duration defined topics interactions, hence applications effectively stand alone topic time. clear, then, helpful longer-term fieldsites enduring process? ethic ‘drop in, get data, out’ commitment … well-being whom merely side effect presence, incorporated ideal (2013: 292, emphasis original). expressed number years. AAA 1971 (Clarke 2010; Mills 2003: 44); calls engaged sparked Scheper-Hughes (1995) echoed High arguing ‘an [is] compelling (2011: 230); activism positioned circumstances open doors (Kirsch Parry 2015). appears discussions membership kinship (Thomas 2016), whether real friendships ethnographically friends (Throop 2014). slightly disparate examples above concern heart produces knowledge. analyses show deep produced participant observation. ‘continuous interpretation’ 2004: 275) does offer enough framework adequately conceptualize work. Here, like framework. Solidarity sociology theorize humans bonded together society. Durkheim (1933 [1893]) Weber (1964 [1920]) drew larger bonds make society continue source analysis (e.g. Jegathesan 2019; Rozakou 2017; Theodossopoulos 2020), here use interlocutors. ‘Solidarity’ term occasionally texts take informants focus. texts, loosely equated collaboration friendship (Benson O'Neill 2007; Teitelbaum 2019). ideas shared goals interests, empathy, respect, 2019), tolerance reciprocity (Koepping 1994). combat alienation atomization (Papataxiarchis opposed solitude (Coleman 2009). grounded equal egalitarian Rakopoulos 2016) actively create anti-hierarchical political stance difference 2016; Routledge extends local transnational (Jegathesan activist (Hale 2006; Kirsch Mullins Rasch Arab van Drunen 2017) embodied (Haynes 2020). counter note, romanticized critically reviewed racist right wing Davids Lem 2008; (2019) understanding, participants’ views anthropologist. highly quality, active equality managed. To greater conceptual clarity suitably drawn upon. features define recognition other, identification similarities self action struggles (Dawson Jennings 2012; 2018; Mason Prainsack Buyx Pratt, Cheah Marsh 2020; Wiggins bioethics, finer concept. declare ‘solidarity signifies reflecting collective carry “costs” (financial, social, emotional otherwise) others’ (2012: 346, removed). defining carries cost. Dawson (2015: 36) necessary actually pay costs, willing bear them expose oneself level risk. Scholz (2020) argues risk needs considered. Others justice aspect (Kohlers 2021; sentiment, value, feeling, distinguishing feature empathy 348; 2017: 43; if similar actions undertaken hierarchical acts charity (Prainsack 2012: Sawalha further motivated sense whereas recognizes similarity other Buxy 54). foundational captured fundamental idea beside’. thought requires public positive position, individual driven sympathy understanding. itself meaning purpose oriented improving correcting past present disadvantage injustice 74). relationship mutual, ‘one party act expectation benefit Other, concern’ strongly intrinsic instrumental (Jennings Komparic, Dawson, Boulanger, Upshur Silva definition dovetails nicely Hodge's point above: only our careers. always easy possible. (2012; 2015) teases types characterize beside’, variants for’, with’, as’. contend utility anthropology. challenging ways. remainder article, dimensions used decades changed shed light choices made. Moreover, ask reshaped field. sense, aim dilemmas illuminating experience fieldsite within it. For some, initial stretch others, span decades, Such sees community hardships researcher varying stages, including, inevitably occasion, community. As Knauft notes, ‘[M]aturity expectations placed returning ethnographer’ 257). periods intensive work, away fieldsite, update intervening (Howell Talle Whyte myself, year initially late 1990s; employment group years; visits 2003, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018. single settled Kuelam Mahur. months being watched trust. No significant done. After ten days, given name, few weeks, allocated position. weeks relevant gradually linguistic competence follow conversations exchange simple sentences language. closely, approval noticeable learned suspend basket head travel precipitous paths gardens, assigned hard general, gardening women. People grinned delight walked women way gardens. Approval attended Catholic village. wasn't until completed gone home returned eight later finally told garden magic: seemed demonstrated hosted obligation families closest 1997-8. part reason took job 2000, mine: hoped give something researching health, resettlement, women's making recommendations Gold Board. best Dawson's standing for: ‘This intention advocate whose situation presumably morally problematic because other's behaviour done other’ 36). healthcare continued offered whole population restricted living ‘affected areas’. My loyalty, despite company, desire unevenly balanced multinational company landholders. fieldsite. outside intruder, consider employees obvious impact employment, came nuanced complexity positions company: departments. By stage, feel behave departments receipt benefits rights corporate group. support members team fight building space acknowledgement nearly resulted termination. aligned ‘political alignment struggle’ (Rasch 24). Women reciprocated hosting huge farewell leaving replete piles gifts mother-to-be. caution limitations someone else engaging self-interest. risk, self-interest second caveat mode ‘imply differentiation, condescension, groups stood 2015: (2012), hierarchy constitutes solidarity. If am honest, gained full-time aiming based, differentiation myself needed for, speak At relatively young, process, third production. Since I, Lihirians, familiarity each other. gaining researc