Abstract
There is much muddled thinking about reflexivity in the writing of members of the interpretive school of anthropology. The muddle consists, in the first place, in paying lip service to relativism while stubbornly clinging to realism and, in the second place, in claiming to confront reflexivity while merely managing it. The root of the trouble lies in anthropologists' failure to acknowledge that reflexivity is not merely something which one "does," such as engaging in self-reflection, but is, rather, an essential and inevitable property of all discourse. The fact that reflexivity is essential is potentially subversive of the authority of the author; hence numerous strategies for managing it.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: