Research that matters

I found this ethnography interesting because it traces ethnic formation in the Southeast Asian diaspora through the lens of the matsutake mushroom. I knew culture and economic livelihood were tied together, but it was interesting to read about the extent to which matsutake mushrooms brought the Iu Mien community together in Oregon’s Cascade Mountains. One line in particularly struck me in which community members described the matsutake smell as  evoking “village life and a child visiting grandparents and chasing dragonflies.” One type of food commodity can unify a community in terms of evoking memories of that ethnic enclave growing and cultural customs such as ways to cook matsutake. 

The evidence Tsing uses to make her argument are accounts of her experiences interacting with Iu Mien community members, tasting matsutake mushrooms cooked in different ways, and traveling to trace the commodity chain of matsutake mushrooms. She uses these experiences to argue that matsutake mushrooms are fundamental to a global commodity chain and are key parts of Japanese and Southeast Asian cultures. My question about her methods is how many people does she estimate talking to in her ethnography? And how long and how deep of a relationship did she develop with each of those people?

Tsing’s writing stood out to me for her discussion surrounding the theme of precarity, through the medium of matsutake. I like how she ties together growth of the Japanese-native mushroom to regional industrialization and globalization, as part of an uncertain process that showcases “collaborative survival” and indeterminacy, which lies at heart of the systemic understanding of “progress”. Tsing’s description of how the transformation of peasant woodlands have affected matsutake growth supports her argument that “precarity is the condition of our time”, exemplifying the correlation between the “first nature” and the “second nature”. I admire Tsing’s emphasis on how capitalist transformation of the environment, precarious in its nature to the ecological relations, could cause responding changes—that are also unpredicted—to the capitalist system. I want to quote her direct words on page 20 because I think they are the key to understand Tsing’s message in a comprehensive manner:
“What if, as I’m suggesting, precarity is the condition of our time—or, to put it an- other way, what if our time is ripe for sensing precarity? What if precarity, indeterminacy, and what we imagine as trivial are the center of the systematicity we seek?”

There were two aspects of Tsing’s writing that stood out to me. The first was her emphasis on observation. Before the prologue, Tsing writes that “research categories develop with the research, not before it.” This captures the sheer essence of ethnographic research: to learn and to learn to understand. Beginning ethnographic research with specific questions and goals could lead to a process which reifies assumptions that cause the researcher to overlook critical aspects of their subjects without even realizing it. The second was the way that she incorporated counter arguments. This was evident in her discussion on progress, which really intrigued me. I felt like she opened my eyes to how our definition of “progress” has been exclusive and ignorant of other beings and processes co-existing in our world. But since progress has been long understood as a defining characteristic of human beings, it was also critical that she addressed both this and the fact that progress has brought about positive changes as well (like in politics). I think that by addressing these things she diminishes skepticism and avoids the trap of oversimplifying a large and complex idea.

Overall, I am very excited to read about the complex network of interactions that center around the matsutake mushroom from a lens which rejects our notion of progress and views it almost as a fabricated safety net for precarity. I also wonder, however, if there would be a way to redefine progress in a more micro and individualistic way that would promote inclusivity. Should we try and seek this out, or reject the idea of progress entirely? Would removing the idea of “progress” as a whole make our lives seem a little too directionless?

Tsing claims that her intent behind the project is not reactionary nor conservative but subversive. I find Tsing’s way of arguing for emancipating human imagination fascinating. Human beings are caught up in the narrative of progress accompanied by simplicity. From the other book, “The Dawn of Everything,” I realized that during human history as a species, its diversity disobeys the “development to complexity” and environmental determinism. For example, the assumption of linear progress gives birth to taxonomical terms for human society (e.g., bands, tribes, chiefdom, and civilization) that not only insufficiently but also inaccurately capture possibilities of human living in the past. In a word, our inability to imagine new ways of achieving equality is because we are confined in our superiority of being at the forefront of development. From the article, “At the precipice of time”, I came to know how the crystal palace, where the world exposition was held during the last century, reflects the age of equipoise that affords to erase the cultural particularity in the human development across the world. At that time, people who used spears for hunting were likely to be considered savages who were trapped in the past by Western society. To decolonize and de-patronize humans and human constructions, Tsing takes a step further to find assemblages of patchy rhythms that are delivered by wilderness and ruination. Nietzsche argues that human languages are anthropocentric in his article “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense.” Tsing seems to present that human imagination is anthropocentric due to its power of construction.

The Tsing reading prompted my reflection on the relationship between various meanings of “nature”: such as “human nature” – one’s disposition – or “Mother Nature” – the source of life and wild spaces. In addition, I am currently reading William Cronon’s Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (1996) for my Environmental Humanities course and was excited to see mention of that author’s other work, Nature’s Metropolis in the Introduction. Such discussions of how “first nature” and “second nature” are used to address ways of living and developing wild spaces; this provides a topical approach to modern challenges that are coming to the forefront in a time of global warming. Keeping with these topics, “third nature” will be a unique concept for me to grapple with as an anthropology student with a focus on environmental topics. Growth of “natural” products in human-disturbed regions addresses questions raised in Matsutake research as well as confronting the role of political strain in global turmoil. Tracing ecological understanding across time will allow for a broader conception of the connection between human evolution, economy, and environment.

For another class, I have been reading The Sociological Imagination. The sociological imagination encourages social scientists, as they work on policies, ethnographies, etc., to critically consider their situation. This means accounting for the historical context, the interactions between systems, and the impact/implications of the policies and how it results in the impact of policy today. That was a very oversimplified summary of The Sociological Imagination, but I think that Tsing, in The Mushroom at the End of the World, is a great exemplification of this. By highlighting the history of destruction in Oregon, the interactions between capitalism and the environment, and the impact of our mindset, values, and actions, she does a great job of illustrating the sociological imagination through her ethnographic work about the matsutake mushroom in this context. Tsing’s ability to thoroughly contextualize the matsutake industry and have an interdisciplinary approach to this ethnography was of particular interest. However, I believe the strongest aspect of the reading so far is their ability to clearly articulate these complex intersections and provoke thought about the reader’s own positioning in these systems and the world.

Hello All,

At the top of the blog page you will see tabs on how to post and on question prompts. The question prompts can help you with developing your response. My main suggestion is with your posts: don’t be boring. Better yet-don’t be bored! This is a course requirement so it is required writing, but I encourage you to focus on what you are specifically interested in discussing about the reading. I promise that all of the readings are fascinating and will inspire many reactions/questions/responses.

Don’t feel like you need to respond to everything in the reading, instead choose to focus on one or two themes/questions/problems/methods that you are interested in hashing out. We will bring these entries into class discussion as well.

As always, feel free to let me know any questions you have.

Dr BJ

PS This is an ongoing blog so you can see previous class discussions as well. The goal is we remember we are continually in conversation with others in our writing and reading. Also, research matters!

While reading Tea and Solidarity, I could not help but be reminded of our earlier reading Queer Freedom: Black Sovereignty as they share similar themes concerning the bodily exploitation resulting from colonization. Perceptions of the Hill Country Tamil’s body were externally imposed first by British colonizers and then later continued by Sri Lankan plantation managers. They were understood to be laborers, their bodies commodified as was the tea that they produced. Connecting to Ana-Maurine Lara’s text, their bodies can be understood with consideration of the “body-lands” that were constructed as a result of their colonial history. What I found interesting, though, is language serves as a mechanism through which their bodies became restricted to the land on which they were exploited, diminishing their identity to only encompass their economic value. Language is powerful in this way as it assigns meanings to bodies and can even alter one’s self-perception. Understanding language to be a means of limiting an individual’s autonomy can help us to better understand the struggle of Hill Country Tamils for dignified existences and access to resources that can enable social mobility.

I really enjoyed reading Tea and Solidarity for many reasons, but specifically for its emphasis on language and the importance that it holds in justice and dignity. The way that words were translated next to their meaning in English throughout the text made me wonder, why were some translated and not others? It is relevant to my dissertation research, as I’m thinking about how to translate both Kichwa words and Spanish words into English. Which ones do I translate and why? In chapter 2, as she discusses the persistence of coolie labor that persist after colonial rule, and in spite of it, I’m thinking back to Tsing and how these two texts might inform one another. The way that the tea, and the Tamil coolies, have become commodified, makes me wonder what significance the tea might have today, were it not commodified. I really enjoyed the way that the author links this idea that Hill Country Tamils are both tied to the land but also transcendent of it. Colonialism has literally constructed their identity in some ways, but in other ways, their identity has global meaning and influence and continues to be dynamic.

I really enjoyed the reading for this week and loved that I was a discussion leader for this reading as it was very interesting and important. When I originally signed up to be a discussion leader, I had no idea what the reading was even about and was pleasantly surprised to have been assigned such a fascinating ethnography to discuss with the class. While the entire book was important, we chose to focus on the Introduction and Chapter 2 because the main themes tie into each other and compliment each other accordingly. I loved focusing on the concept of language and the power that words have. Much of the structural violence that the Hill Country Tamils (and especially the women) have faced is due to words and phrases that have negative and belittling connotations. When the main vocabulary used and recognized in a certain area perpetuates ongoing colonialism and the oppression of marginalized groups, it is a form of structural violence that continually represses these people and their ability to remove themselves from adverse situations. For example, many of the younger generations of Tamils have parents that work on tea plantations but do not want to work on these plantations themselves. They dream of being teachers, doctors, scientists, government officials, and more. These people do not want to be tied down to labels that hold so much negative meaning because of their roots in colonialism and slavery. This idea also applies to a much broader context with the marginalized groups of the United States and the rest of the world. Language is extremely powerful and connects to the landscape. When negative words, phrases, and labels are used to identify an entire group of people this essentially traps them into a label or stigma that they do not actually fall into. I believe this concept is very important and would like to discuss more in class. One question I am left with is: in what other ways do you see the concept of language (words, phrases, labels, etc.) contribute to structural violence in the world?

In Tea and Solidarity,  Dr. Jegathesan explores the stories of the women, men, and children who have built their families and lived in line houses on tea plantations in Sri Lanka. Dr. Jegathesan seeks to expand anthropological understandings of dispossession and draws attention to the significance of gender in the lives of tea makers.

In chapter 2, Dr. Jegathesan argues that previous scholars’ description of tea plantations as a “Total Institution” is limited. She argues that yes, the entrenchment of plantation institutions in colonial structures of power and domination makes it impossible to ignore the impacts on the lives of Tamil workers, however, specifically in the younger generation, their lives are not static as they seek alternative employment opportunities. I found this illustration particularly transferable to other areas of the globe: i.e. aftereffects of slavery in the U.S. or African countries’ sovereignty post-colonialism. Furthermore, Dr. Jegathesan assessment of language was fascinating and even presented as a historical tool as well as a linguistic tool. All in all, this was an interesting read.

After the series of heavier ethnographies we have gone through, this one was introduced as an ethnography about tea. However, much like with many other parts of the global economy, modern day tea production is the product of neocolonialism. I think Jegathesan did a good job connecting history to the modern day conditions of Tamil women. Understanding history is important towards understanding the modern world and showing the connections is an important role that ethnographies can have in the overall discussion. One way this ethnography accomplishes this connection by showing how historically developed prejudices that are used to justify the labor conditions are reinforced through certain words. 

Tea & Solidarity provided an interesting look into the lives of Tamil women during the postwar era in Sri Lanka. In the novel, author Mythri Jegathesan illustrates the economic crisis that the tea industry was funneled through after the civil war in the country. As a result of the damages of the war, many individuals, notably the Tamil women, were forced to make significant life changes, whether it pertains to plantation life or domestic work. One aspect of Jegathesan’s ethnography that I enjoyed was her employment of feminist ethnographic research methods. Especially given the topic is oriented around the Tamil women and their lifestyles, she was able to utilize appropriate methods in order to understand the various experiences of these laborer women. Furthermore, throughout the reading, she sought to really expand on the political and economic significance of gender and highlighted how the Tamil women were a key feature in this regard to Sri Lanka as well as South Asia in a broader sense. I enjoyed how Jegathesan worked overall to shed light on a generally disregarded community and highlighted their labor and heritage through her ideas of dispossession and descriptions of Sri Lanka as a post colonial nation.

Colonization is a big topic which there can be many different feelings toward this subject.  Jagathessan talks about a deep subject but conveys it very fluently. Reading the article made it clear how she felt when talking about colonization. Thinking of this as its name Tea and Solidarity makes you wonder of how you find peace when you realize that majority of the world is affected by colonization. Just thinking about America and how it is affected by colonization. Thinking about the brutality that colonization came with is not very pleasant. Knowing that people took other individuals’ land by force and many other forms of brutality is wrong. As a matter of fact is that it has continued but just been hidden in different ways. Just thinking about livable wages in which some people do not make enough money to have a livable wage is sad. Forced labor is all around us but they justify it by paying people but do not pay them enough.

Tea and Solidarity discusses the desire among minorities of Hill Country Tamil workers to be free of the legend of colonialism. Similar themes of racial, economic, and social oppression can be seen throughout the book to other works we have studied. I found the discussion of the word “coolie” quite interesting in this context. It is very problematic and offensive to those to which it refers; however, it is so tied into the vernacular and narrative at this point that it may become confusing or even gloss over certain aspects of history if it were to be changed. Another theme that was quite familiar to me was the idea of how the physical landscape ties into the identity of the workers: “Second, this book focuses on how gender and labor relations as well as investments map onto the residential-industrial landscapes of Sri Lanka’s tea plantations. These spaces include the hills, which Hill Country Tamil residents maintain and imagine as contributing to their often-conflicted but ever-present sense of home and place in Sri Lanka.” I think the concept of body-lands from Queer Freedom: Black Sovereignty strongly applies here. However, what stood out to me as being different in this study is the focus on female workers in particular. I think it is important to recognize the many forms of structural violence and oppression that women must face that men do not. Jegathesan states: “Social indicators of deficiency across health care, literacy, and higher education are most prominent among Hill Country Tamil women, who constitute more than half of the plantation workforce but suffer the greatest marginalization due to patriarchal forms of domination, unequal labor practices, and, in some cases, physical violence.” This makes me wonder: what measures must be taken to free women specifically from the legend of colonial oppression? How does this differ for men?

I came for tea, and instead found a narrative about how colonialism manages to stick around. In all seriousness, the story about Sadha and her family really struck me. Especially, the point where her niece took her seriously for a moment, only until she was able to see the jest in Sadha’s eyes. The momentary worry that it wasn’t actually a joke hit close to home, because I’ve seen that same apprehension in my younger siblings when I went off for college.

I appreciated the author’s straightforwardness in their work. I noticed that they are almost entirely absent from the stories they present and only acknowledge themself when referring to how a situation was witnessed, or a conversation came about. I also appreciated the background is thoroughly covered and I was never confused about what the author was talking about, something that can’t be said about some of the other ethnographies we’ve studied. Overall, it felt very formal and informative rather than personal, while still allowing us to understand the problem and apply the technique to our own study.