I think this reading really highlighted the concept of scale that we discussed in class last week. Thomas seems to be tackling many layers including but not limited to: violence, culture, community, and political structure. It seems as if the ability to touch on such a wide variety of topics is unique to ethnographies in comparison to other types of research. The following quote from the introduction best encapsulated all of Thomas’ ideas for me: “Exceptional Violence therefore attempts to think through the repertoires and cyclical histories that expand to incorporate and accommodate the new while always giving us the sense that we have somehow seen this before.” This begs the question: when does scale become too large? Since we are writing a 10-12 page ethnography, how much can we really say without being too vague?
Another aspect of these opening chapters that stuck out to me was the amount of background research and past literature Thomas references. This is very different from the Tsing reading which seemed to revolve much more around personal experiences rather than drawing upon historical evidence. Exceptional Violence may rely more heavily on past literature because timing is key in interpreting the results. Looking at these communities pre and post WWII will undoubtedly tell two completely different stories. Using a lense of comparison provides a stronger basis for understanding. Are there certain subjects that lend themselves more to historical research? How do we know?