1. Mackenzie Terzian
Anth. 410
Spring 2013
Getting Down and Dirty in the Field:
A look at Eroticism and Sexual Encounters Within Ethnographic Fieldwork
“The ethnographer is expected to be simultaneously detached and intensely engaged, not to
express uncontrolled emotion, yet to live with people who become, for a short time, surrogate
parents, surrogate siblings—and sometimes real lovers.
Where is the living, breathing human here?
(Willson, 1995:254)
Abstract
We all understand anthropology as the study of people, past and present, through a
non‐biased lens. Ethnocentrism has proven to be the concept that creates and determines
the judgments placed upon other cultural values, when predisposed with our own cultural
beliefs. However, like all human beings, anthropologists are not exempt to sometimes
developing an ethnocentric eye towards cultures, rituals, and values. Within this paper, I
will address the taboo of sexual relations and erotic desire within the field, why it is
considered to be “professional suicide”, as well as why this notion of “don’t ask, don’t tell”
surrounding sex during fieldwork is incredibly ethnocentric. Along with these arguments
that many hold against the act of engaging intimately with “informants”, I will also address
how crossing this boundary of unexamined sexuality is important in order to break down
the classically false dichotomy between “us” and “the natives”.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
In the past, little research has been published delving into the truths of
anthropologists engaging in sexual relations with their “informants”, nor have many

2. anthropologists included, or even mentioned, aspects of developing desires and eroticisms
within their field. Research surrounding sex and eroticism is bound to be controversial, and
when holding scientific credibility as a researcher, this controversy has so far proven to
scrutinize and undermine the validity of the research. However, perhaps the presences of
the silence surrounding romantic encounters should be analyzed and challenged. Michael
Ashkenazi and Fran Markowitz state in their compilation of essays titled Sex, Sexuality, and
the Anthropologists that “Sherlock Holmes once said that the fact that the dog did not bark in
the night was highly significant. Linguists also recognize that silences, the pauses in speech,
may often ‘say’ more that the precise words that are uttered” (Ashkenazi, Markowitz.
1999:2). So, by starting at this immense silence surround eroticism in the field, I will begin
to assess the unspoken taboo of what it really means for an anthropologist to be embedded
within their fieldwork.
We have learned, as anthropologists, that the lack of words, actions, and
acknowledgments often carry the loudest stories. These stories are, of coarse, culturally
specific and hold different levels of importance within different contexts. In the framework
of our academic career, the silence directed towards these “unwritten rules of sex”
highlights the potential of being scrutinized by outside researchers and “hard” scientists.
... The taboo against ‘sex in the field’ is held up as a way to
protect our claim to scientific credibility, to our ideal of
ethnographic research as unbiased participant observation
guided by trustworthy intellect rather than troublesome
emotions. (Gearing, 1995:207).
Ethnographers are looked at as being a detached observer, which, for early ethnographers
like Margret Mead, may have been the case. However, today, anthropologists are taking a
new approach and view in ethnography; we are becoming more integrated within the

3. culture and more likely to question our own identities while breaking down the
Westernized notion of “us” and “them”. By anthropologists like Bronislaw Malinowski
“corseting” themselves, and repressing their desires and responses to the people they
studied, they restricted their vantage point of the culture. Malinowski left many stones
unturned and aspects of life unexamined by ignoring his desires of intimacy in the field.
(Altork, 1995:118).
Questioning Ethics and Exploitation
By first questioning what it means to be ethical as an ethnographer, perhaps we can
develop some overlapping “code of ethics” that can be applied by ethnographers in the field.
But then again, I have yet to find the guidebook in which all ethics are explained from a
Universal point of view pertaining to the agenda of all.
Exploitation of a culture is something that all ethnographers should be incredibly
cautious of; this is, in fact, one of the many deterrent reasons behind the taboo of erotic
relations within the field. Some of the possible exploitative cautions that I will examine are
those of power, trust, and objectivity.
To start, I’d like to discuss how power relations play into ethnography, and how an
ethical anthropologist should address these structures of power when forming
relationships during their fieldwork. A valid question to consider is whether or not the
consent being given is true consent, or whether it is consent given from a “powerless being”
to the one in power (Grauerholz, 2013:169). Fran Markowitz states that the ethnographer
does in fact take on the “superior” role as the researcher, and the other as the “object” of the
research. However, it is important to recognize that the field ethnographer is nearly nothing
without placing reliance on the informants for providing shelter, food, language,
information and cultural rules (Markowitz, 1999: 171). This is not to say that the

4. ethnographer is always in the hands of the informants, but it is an aspect of power in which
attention should be revisited.
A key example of this “newfound” power relation is Gloria Wekker, an
anthropologist who conducted research on women’s sexual culture in Suriname. Wekker
engaged in a same‐sex relationship with her main informant, Juliette, who, Wekker states,
was the “initiator” of the relationship. Within Wekker’s book The Politics of Passion, she
recalls upon an entry that she made within her diary: What am I to do? I don’t think having
sex is a very good idea, I want to remain her daughter rather than become her [lover]. How
would we continue to live together, if things do not work out? I am not prepared to move out,
look for another place to live, and lose her, the worst scenario (Wekker, 2006:18).
All of the aforementioned questions and concerns that Wekker considered are basic
fears to have, as well as all great things to honestly contemplate— however, Wekker later
describes that entering into the relationship with Juliette was insightful towards
discovering the truths of Surinamese women’s sexuality, redefining the notions of equality
as an outsider, as well as uncovering her own identity. Wekker states, in regard to power
structure, “it was culture and age that played out most in [Juliette’s] factor in the balance of
equality and difference between us. She was the expert in a culture, a politics of passion,
that I wanted to understand” (Wekker, 2006:21).
Wekker’s explanation of this power relation is important to thoroughly understand.
She addresses the differences of what it means to hold power in different cultures, which
does not always revolve around economics, nor level of education. Within these different
cultural contexts, we must understand that definitive lines are no longer definitive; equality
and power have a way of becoming ambiguous to what we have learned to familiarize
ourselves with.

5. In regard to trust, which should be present within both research and relationship, it
is essential for the researcher to provide full disclosure. It is unethical, in any ethnographic
setting, to remain anonymous; this holds especially true if you create bonds, of any strength,
with those you are secretly researching and writing about.
Another problematic ethical dilemma dealing with the trustworthiness between
intimate partners is disclosure. How does an ethnographer decide what they include within
their writing, possibly even publishing, and what stays between partners? Indeed full
disclosure must exist, but even within this disclosure it is possible to have someone reveal
quite a bit, and forget the possibility of it becoming published. As an ethnographer dealing
with the trust of others, we must learn the skill of omission. By omitting specific‐details of a
lover, quarrel, or casual encounter, the ethnographer can spare distress and damage based
on the position of trust; “Omission is political, it is also tricky, yet it is often necessary.”
(Taylor, 2011:14).
Objectivity is the last theme of this ethical debate that I will formally address. The
fear by many, when considering eroticism in the field, is whether or not their research will
be skewed due to their new stance within the community; will their emotions, status, and
perspective become subjective. In my opinion, whether or not one acts upon their desires,
those desires are still present, and are still subconsciously within of you. Kate Altork
references these sensory/sensual inputs within her article Walking the Fire Line, she states
“The sense that we are equipped with are powerful antennae through which to experience,
providing us with full us of what Ackerman calls out synesthetic abilities” (Altork, 1995:
116), referring to Ackerman’s idea of relegating these inputs into field journals, rather than
ignoring them all together.
Of coarse objectivity is going to occur at some level, but then again, when will it not?
By immersing oneself into the field, and remaining open towards the possibility of sexual

6. interactions, we are “promotion a more inclusive identity and a deeper understanding of
the people being studied” (Bolton, 1995:159). This, Bolton goes onto describe, is perhaps a
better way to gain an inclusive understanding of a culture, rather than objectively standing
on the outskirts, and waiting for observing from a far. By remaining “aloof” to our emotional
curiosity I do not think that effective ethnographic research can be done without emotional
engagement, and the pursuit of a methodology that ignores what we learn from our
emotions is undermining the validity of the resulting information (Gearing, 1995:207).
Gearing also addresses the importance of recognizing and listening to these emotions;
because without them, our directed studies will remain incredibly narrow‐scoped—
portraying simply a facade of the people, rather than the people, themselves, in the flesh of
their cultures and behaviors.
Ethics are incredibly important when researching attributes of human life, whether
past or present; however, it remains that “the problem [with practicing ethical
anthropology] remains in searching for a standard of divergent ethical standards that take
into account (but do not privilege) our own ‘Western’ cultural presuppositions” (Scheper‐
Hughes, 1995:418).
As previously mentioned, ethnocentrism is the notion of applying judgment onto
another culture based on our own presuppositions. This proves to be problematic, to say
the least, because of the discrepancy between cultures at multiple levels, and, with regards
to ethics, it is important to recognize whose ethics are we implementing within the field.
Sex in the Field
The anthropologist has, at some point in history, picked up an identity of imposed
celibacy or asexuality while doing research. John Wengle proclaims that this newfound
celibacy forces the anthropologist to redirect his “probably acute” sexual fantasies away

7. from the field, and back to his own culture. Wengle continues to state that when this is
done, the “celibate anthropologist is, if nothing else, secure in his sense of identity” (Kulick,
1995:8). The issue with Wengle’s approach, as Don Kulick states, is that sex is not defined as
the “ultimate problem of self‐lost”, rather, it holds an opportunity for connection with
others and for the evaluation of self (Kulick, 1995:9).
By following Wengle’s analysis of the importance of abstinence in the field, we are
thereby refusing to cross cultural boundaries and further perpetuating the idea of an “all‐
mighty anthropologist” studying “the natives.” The goal for ethnographers, however, is to
lessen the distance between us. This is why many anthropologists were originally attracted
to the field of anthropology, because it is the understanding of people from their own
perspective, rather than studying life forms from a Petri dish.
In fact, Kulick urges that identifying one’s sexuality in the field has the potential of
enhancing one’s position, and therefore, one’s research. He states,
Sex can urge an exploration of the basis for, the nature of,
and the consequences of relationships entered into the field.
It can be one way of putting the self at stake, and or ‘working
through the desire to imagine, to inhabit, to caress, to be and
to be with the other’, which, in turn, may allow for a qualified
and cautious extension of position and permeation of the
boundaries and roles one which anthropologists, for the
most part, uncritically depend (Kulick, 1995:23).
Kulick’s statement shows both the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual relationships
while in the field, and this is precisely what is needed within ethnographies; a cautionary
exploration of a people, relations, and self.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is not to encourage all ethnographers to eroticize
themselves during their fieldwork, but what I do suggest is to not be afraid of your emotions

8. as an ethnographer. If you desire a certain encounter, and said encounter is socially sound
within the cultural context of the place of study, as well as consensual, then we should not
have to listen to the “unwritten rules” pertaining to our involvement within a culture. There
is always going to be an ambiguous line determining how far is too far, this seems
inevitable; however, by acknowledging, writing about, and teaching about erotic equations
in the field, we can not only be better prepared for dealing with them at hand, but also
understand a culture at a more holistic level. We should, as Michael Winkelman describes,
“always be aware of the powerful effects of such liaisons upon self‐concepts and subsequent
development, as well as well‐being and local relationships” (Winkelman, 1999:91). And
this, like everything regarding ethnography and cultures, is case dependent, and varies
amongst the world.
The opportunity to break down the classical dichotomy of “us” and “the natives” is
in front of us, and by further employing these “rules” of sexual identity, curiosity, and
involvement, we are not doing our jobs as anthropologists; we are just furthering the divide.
My Anthropology
This specific topic of intimate encounters in the field has yet to apply directly to my
personal ethnographic fieldwork—however, I believe in taking the stance towards breaking
down the dichotomy between “us” and “Other”. Specifically, in regards to the anthropologist
that I intend to become within my future research, I plan on breaking down these binary
labels of “us” and “them”, or “normal” and “deviant”.
I understand the many taboos, as well as their placement and importance within
many settings; however, within certain settings, it is appropriate to venture beyond the
unwritten rules in order to understand something holistically. “Intimate relationships can
open many avenues for cultural adaptation and learning through additional social contexts
and the personal relationships that serve as a source of insider perspectives and positive
emotional transferences” (Winkelman, 1999:90). As a young anthropologist currently
questioning and examining several theories of gender, sexuality, and identity, I believe that

9. by addressing our own emotional avenues, we can better understand those avenues
belonging to differing cultures and people.
This paper has provided a brief abridgment of equating our own eroticism and
sexuality within fieldwork. I hope to have the opportunity to look deeper into the history,
writings, and arguments pertaining to this erotic equation, as well as examine the gender
and “sexualization” that surrounds work in cultural anthropology, specifically ethnographic
work. This will, inevitably, lead me to better understand why I chose to become an
anthropologist; to understand why these lines, or dichotomies, are drawn between peoples,
and to cross them.
References:
Altork, K. (1995) Walking the Fire Line: The Erotic Dimension of the Fieldwork Experience.
Article within Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological
Fieldwork, pp. 76‐107.
Bolton, R. (1995) Tricks, Friends, and Lovers: Erotic Encounters in the Field. Article within
Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork, pp. 140‐
168.

10. Fitzgerald, T. (1999) Identity in Ethnography: Limits to Reflective Subjectivity. Article within
Sex, Sexuality, and the Anthropologist, pp. 117‐128.
Gearing, J. (1995) Fear and Loving in the West Indies: Research from the Heart (as well as the
head). Article within Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological
Fieldwork, pp. 186‐219.
Greenhill, P. (2007) Epistemological Reflections on Sex and Fieldwork. Women’s and Gender
Studies, University of Winnipeg. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Grauerholz, L., Barringer, M., Colyer, T., Guittar, N., Hecht, J., Rayburn, R., Swart, E. (2013)
Attraction in the Field: What We Need to Acknowledge and Implications for Research
and Teaching. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(3) pp. 167‐178. Department of Sociology,
University of Central Florida.
Kulick, D., Willson, M. (1995) Taboo: Sex, Identity and erotic subjectivity in Anthropological
Fieldwork.
Markowitz, F., Ashkenazi, M. (1999) Sex, Sexuality, and the Anthropologist. University of
Illinois Press.
Markowitz, F. (1999) Sexing the Anthropologist: Implications for Ethnography. Article within
Sex, Sexuality, and the Anthropologist, pp. 161‐175.
Morton, H. (1995) My ‘Chastity Belt’: Avoiding Seduction in Tonga. Article within Taboo: Sex,
Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork, pp. 168‐185.
Newton, E. (1993) My Best Informants Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork. Cultural
Anthropology, Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 3‐23. American Anthropological Association.
Taylor, J. (2011) The Intimate Insider: Negotiation the Ethics of Friendship When Doing
Insider Research. Griffith University, Australia.
Wekker, G. (2006) The Politics of Passion: Women’s Sexual Culture in the Afro­Surinamese
Diaspora. Columbia University Press, New York.
Willson, M. (1995) Perspectives and Differences: Sexualization, the Field, and the
Ethnographer. Article within Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in
Anthropological Fieldwork, pp. 251‐276.
Winkelman, M. (1999) Cross­Cultural Social­Sexual Adaptations in Fieldwork: Perspectives
from Mexican Field Settings. Article within Sex, Sexuality, and the Anthropologist, pp.
75‐92.