The Power of Collaboration

Bob W. White Bob W. White (see p. 101) MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL 317 After Bob W. White took part in the Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program in November 2006,1 LEVIER asked him to further develop the reflections about collaboration that he had shared with the participants. Bob W. White is an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the Université de Montréal. He has conducted extensive fieldwork in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, and is the author of Rumba Rules: The Politics of Dance Music in Mobutu’s Zaire, a monograph that examines the relationship between popular music and political culture. He has published on the performance and the history of Congolese popular dance music, the political culture of the Mobutu regime, the critical study of world music and more recently on intersubjectivity in cross-cultural relations. He is currently working on a comparative analysis of cultural policy in French-speaking Africa and audience-based approaches to the study of culture and politics in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa. The Power of Collaboration Bob W. White Taupe : petit mammifère, répandu en Europe, en Amérique, etc., caractérisé par un corps oblong, un pelage ras, velouté, noir ou gris argenté, un museau allongé en boutoir, des yeux très petits, une ouïe et un odorat développés, des membres antérieurs robustes, aux mains larges, à paume nue, aux doigts munis d’ongles tranchants, servant à fouir et qui vit sous terre, se nourrissant d’insectes, de vers, de larves, considéré à la fois comme utile et comme nuisible aux cultures. — Dictionnaire Larousse Je ne vois guère plus qu’une taupe; et d’ailleurs j’irai bientôt dans leur royaume, en regrettant fort peu celui-ci, mais en vous regrettant beaucoup. — Voltaire2 A Mole at the Workshop3 When I spoke to the participants in the Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program organized by Engrenage Noir / LEVIER in November 2006, I described the feeling of saturation I had with respect to what was said the first day. As if to confirm that impression, one of the participants in the workshop, with a mixture of irony and affection, compared my presence to that of a mole. Throughout that first day of activities and discussion, I had thought about the possibility and the importance of my speaking up, but I didn’t feel ready. “With broad paws and bare palms,” I took notes, and I listened while trying to grasp the various levels of complexity I had been asked to comment on. Not only was I afraid of my voice and everything it represented to the ears of others (university professor, white man, anthropologist), but frankly, I also wondered about the value and relevance of my expertise. What was I doing in a context of artistic and community practices that, like many contexts, probably had no knowledge of, or need for, anthropology, a discipline “considered both useful and harmful to … culture”? What did I have to add concretely? The answer to this question, as unsatisfactory as it may be, will be the subject of this text. The anthropological approach to fieldwork, that at some level has always required collaboration between anthropologists and their subjects, is based on observing “other cultures” — that is, the cultural aspects of non-Western societies, since historically most anthropologists have come from the West — but also on listening, although that aspect is often neglected in the stories the discipline tells itself about its role in history. Over the last several years, I have been working on the idea of listening, as method4 and also as metaphor5 — not only listening to others, but also listening to the self while listening to others.6 For reasons that may seem obvious, listening is an integral part of any collaborative endeavour. However, collaboration in anthropology more often refers to collaboration among anthropologists than to collaboration between anthropologists and representatives of the groups they are studying. In my own research, it took a long time before I worked explicitly on the subject of collaboration, not only because I was not sure if it was an acceptable subject in my colleagues’ view, but also because there are still relatively few theoretical models for thinking about this issue.7 I am therefore grateful to the organizers of the LEVIER training program for giving me the opportunity to take my reflections beyond my role as an 318 anthropologist. Before answering the question “Why work together?” which is the main purpose of my article, I would like to define the various components of collaboration, especially the question of how power can have an impact on interactions among individuals. Power and Collaboration Of course, when I speak of the “power of collaboration” I am playing on the ambiguity of the word power, which can mean “force” but also “authority.” It is important to set these two definitions of the word aside while we consider what is at stake in collaboration. As Michel Foucault would say, power is not something one possesses; rather, it is a fundamentally relational phenomenon: “Power is not something that is acquired, seized, or shared, something that one holds on to or allows to slip away; power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of nonegalitarian and mobile relations.”8 The concept of hegemony used by Gramsci,9 which makes a crucial distinction between power and power relations, allows us to distance ourselves from the simplistic opposition between domination and resistance that has too long characterized the literature in anthropology.10 According to Gramsci’s analysis, hegemony does not refer to the use of force, but rather to a situation when the dominant classes impose an ideology that is explained as “common sense” and is generally accepted and reproduced in a society, even Bob W. White and his colleague Yoka at the beginning of his last research trip to Kinshasa in July 2008. by its most marginalized elements. It is in this sense that Photo: Serge Makobo. we can say that the dominated participate in their own domination, in part because the ideology of the dominant classes prevents a critical view of how that domination operates. In other words, the dominant needs the dominated. This model of power, which comes out of the Marxist tradition but also echoes Plato’s lesson on false consciousness and alienation in the cave allegory, allows us to glimpse the full relational complexity of power. Anthropology has focused a good deal on the question of power, mostly in the study of “micropolitics,”11 the analysis of the dynamics of power in a context of social, local or affective dynamic. At the same time, anthropology as a discipline has also been much criticized for the way it bases its own authority as a manifestation of power. In an analysis that is still as fresh now as it was 25 years ago, Johannes Fabian’s Time and the Other12 suggests that anthropology has created its own object of study (“exotic” or “premodern” or “primitive” peoples), using writing strategies that create temporal and geographic distance between the West and the other cultures of the world. In fact, the denial of shared time and space — what Fabian calls coevalness — constitutes the erasure not only of a relationship of intersubjectivity between self and Other, but also of the presence of the anthropologist observing culturally-based forms of knowledge. One of the criticisms that could be made of Fabian’s analysis today is the fact that it is limited to writing (an observation that puts him, despite significant differences, in the same current as the anthropological postmodernists in the United States), without proposing models for understanding what exactly is erased and what can be done to remedy this situation. But Fabian’s analysis opened the eyes of many anthropologists, bringing them back to the ethnographic field as the intercultural site par excellence, where knowledge produced on the practices, beliefs and values of a particular people is the result of a series of encounters and conversations. His subsequent work13 deals with the revalorization of local knowledge and the impossibility of understanding the cultures of others outside the metaphor of conversation. In this sense, Fabian’s work has contributed positively to a resurgence of interest in the idea of knowledge as a “goal in itself” without, however, talking about the practice or theory of collaboration. In recent years, anthropology has shown growing interest in the question of collaboration, not only because all ethnographic work is the product of ongoing collaboration between researcher and subject, but also because collaboration represents an entry point into various discussions about ethics. According to Luke Eric Lassiter, “collaborative ethnography is first and foremost an ethical and moral enterprise, and subsequently a political one; it is not an enterprise in search of knowledge alone.”14 It is no longer appropriate to simply talk about the “Aboriginal point of view,” as the previous generation of anthropologists did, or of the “dialogic” or “polyphonic” forms of ethnographic texts, as the next generation did. In contemporary anthropology too, we observe an “irruption/eruption of ethics,”15 in which “ethics is not only an attitude of Bob W. White MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL 319 questioning, a predisposition and an intention, but a project – a fallible and perishable project – that exists in tension with (and therefore bound to), a setting, history, tradition and language.”16 Drawing in part on the work of the philosopher Paul Ricœur, Louise Lachapelle explains that any attempt to articulate an ethics of community art must first be cognizant of the historical relationship between art as an autonomous form (“art for art’s sake”) and art as social engagement, since “the practices of community art remain dependent on this artistic culture that aims to change the world.”17 This caveat is also important for the theories and the practice of collaboration. It is difficult to talk about a “method” or a “philosophy” of collaboration.18 The theoretical approaches to this topic are very varied and most of the models available recognize the fact that every collaborative process is unique because every collaboration is unique. Despite these factors of complexity, a distinction can usually be made between “participatory” and “strategic” collaboration.19 Participatory collaboration combines human and material resources around a shared objective that benefits all participants in the project, although not necessarily for the same reasons. Strategic collaboration tends to strengthen the status or authority of the persons who initiate and control the collaboration. The difference between these two poles is often difficult to establish, in part because there are many cases in which collaboration is expressed through a participatory rhetoric but is structured around a strategic approach. The Pitfalls of Collaboration Edith Regier’s film Reparative Culture,20 which was shown during the Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program organized by LEVIER, begins with some words often attributed to the Aborigine educator and activist Lila Watson: “If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine then let us work together.” But according to a contribution to the blog of the Northland Poster Collective (an online store for material on social justice), this quotation — which has been repeated “thousands of times” — is not from Lila Watson. “Ricardo” (a founding member and artist) explains: We create a lot of art based on quotes and are always trying to get the most accurate information we can on them. After some years we found some citations of it that mentioned Lila Watson. Excited to finally find a source for the quote we decided to research it. We finally tracked Lila down. She is still a community leader and activist (in Brisbane, I think). Anyway, we explained that we wanted permission to use the quote in a poster. Her husband (who acted as go-between in these conversations) knew exactly what quote we were calling about. It had already made the rounds widely. Lila explained that she had been part of an Aboriginal rights group in Queensland (the hotbed of Black Power organizing at the time) in the early 1970s. They had come up with the phrase in the course of their work — probably for some of the printed literature they produced as part of their organizing. She could not remember the exact process of how it had come about. She was quite clear, though, that she was not comfortable being credited for something that had been born of a collective process.21 he idea of “giving a voice to” is problematic because it makes no distinction between the ability to speak and the right to speak After receiving this information, Northland began to use the attribution “Aboriginal activists group, Queensland, 1970s,” despite the accusing messages they receive from time to time on the subject: “Of course, we still receive a few indignant e-mails such as ‘you know you should attribute this quotation to Lila Watson, Aboriginal activist and educator.’”22 The irony of this story is obvious: despite the importance the quotation places on a collaborative approach, the process of collective work is totally erased when it is attributed to the genius of a single individual.23 In the following section, I will explore the complexity of these words, looking at the meaning of its various components. “If You Have Come to Help Me You Are Wasting Your Time…” The second half of the 20th century could be described as the humanitarian era, and many authors have discussed the political effects of a culture or industry of intervention.24 But this tradition of “coming to help you” certainly did not begin with the emergence of the category “Third World.”25 Before humanitarian aid, anthropology wanted to save Aboriginal cultures whose traditions seemed to be endangered, but anthropology was also an instrument of domination in the development of the colonial project.26 Furthermore, and for much longer, Christianity spread throughout the world in order to save souls, often with devastating effects. The desire to help others is not bad in itself, but the desire to save them presents certain pitfalls: 320 With violence, creativity, and the tendency to want to save others so intricately related, it is no wonder how often the anxiety experienced at the threshold of change gets acted out through violence or attempts at heroism — as creativity and personal development are much more demanding.27 I share with Julie Fiala the concern for distinguishing between authentic collaborations and those “that merely pretend to understand it,” although I know that the concept of authenticity is problematic and that the continuum model does not solve the problem of opposition. In one of the rare texts that analyze in concrete terms the relationship between the intentions and the effects of collaborative work, Fiala presents three examples of collaboration in the context of community art. According to her, the collaborative project of the artist Judy Chicago (The Dinner Party28) “is less collaborative than directive, more directive than co-operative,”29 and the approach of the artist Suzanne Lacy hides behind a collaborative rhetoric:30 “The relationship between her self and Others is not at all reciprocal: the others have become pawns in her game.”31 Fiala’s analysis is detailed and precise from the point of view of both art and ethical thinking. She contrasts the work of Chicago and Lacy with that of Carol Condé and Karl Beveridge,32 which she considers much more collaborative. It should be noted, however, that Fiala provides less evidence to support the collaborative example (Condé and Beveridge) than the directive examples (Chicago and Lacy), either because it is easier to say what collaboration is not than what it is, or because Fiala is more approving of the Condé and Beveridge’s collaboration. In either case, what is not said seems important here. “But If You Have Come Because Your Liberation is Bound Up with Mine…” One of the greatest pitfalls in wanting to help the Other is the lack of distance of the self and the danger that the self will project its need for effectiveness (“It’s horrible! We have to do something!”) and recognition (“We are their only hope”) onto the others. From this point of view, the Other is not someone who is fighting every day to reach his or her goals and who faces obstacles invisible to the outsider, but rather someone who needs to be liberated, someone who is suffering, someone without resources or recourse. The concept of resonance, an important concept for the understanding of intersubjective and intercultural dynamics, may help the Self acquire some detachment from him- or herself. According to the Norwegian ethnologist Unni Wikan: Resonance thus demands something of both parties to communication, of both reader and author: an effort at feeling-thought, a willingness to engage with another world, life, or idea: an ability to use one’s experience … to try to grasp, or convey meanings that reside neither in words, “facts,” nor text but are evoked in the meeting of one experiencing subject with another or with a text.33 Resonance can be defined as the feeling or emotional reaction that arises in us when faced with the difference of the Other: disdain, fear, frustration, confusion, fascination, unease, anger, etc. Resonance in itself is not productive. On the contrary, if it remains in the realm of the unspoken, it can have very negative consequences on the relationship between self and Other. But like Hans-Georg Gadamer’s concept of prejudice,34 and because resonance, like prejudice, is universal, the intelligent use of resonance is a necessary condition for an intersubjective or collaborative process. In other words, awareness of the individual, social and cultural baggage of the self is essential to our understanding of the Other; indeed, according to Gadamer, it is a fundamental condition of that understanding. Resonance, as awareness of the suffering of the self, enables the self to better understand the link between his or her own liberation and that of the Other. It is true, as Martin Luther Photo from the book The Other Side of Middletown : Exploring Muncie’s King stated, that injustice is everybody’s business (“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice African American Community. Photo: Danny Gawlowski. everywhere”), but it is also important to show how privilege hides behind the ideology of opportunity or perseverance (the highest expression of which is the famous “American dream”) and how, in the history of the world, the accumulation of wealth is less the result of progress than of exploitation. It is in this sense that the liberation of the self is linked to the liberation of the Other: while the survival of some people is threatened, others are imprisoned by the webs of the ideology that justifies their privilege: Despite its bitterness and violence, the whole point of Fanon’s work is to force the European metropolis to think its history together with the history of colonies awakening from the cruel stupor and abused immobility of imperial dominion.35 Bob W. White MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL 321 Working with the Other requires that the self recognize his or her own perceptions, but also his or her vulnerability: It is precisely this “intersubjective vulnerability” that situates collaboration in relation to ethics, not an ethics of individuation that separates Self from Other, but rather an ethics of responsibility that unites Self and Other. A collaborative ethics, I feel, is similar to Gilligan’s second model: it is an ethics of attention, reactivity and responsibility.36 “In this Case, We Could Work Together…” While the concept of collaboration refers to the possibility of “working together,” a theory of collaboration should not make the mistake of presuming consensus, harmony and equality. In other words, all reflection on collaboration should take into consideration the dynamics and the stakes of power (power in the sense of imposition of authority). At the same time, we need a positive model of collaborative work (power in the sense of force), an ideal to reach if we want to bring about social change through common or shared projects. What are the factors that favour the development of a true “collaborative ethics?” First of all, flexibility with respect to the objectives and results of the project, an attitude of detachment, “without being attached to any specific outcome,”37 is important. Listening also plays a role, as long as it is active listening that truly seeks to help the Other to grow.38 Finally, there is creativity, a source of inspiration, certainly, but also of problems, because creative processes — like concepts of beauty — not only are subjective and personal, but also often remain in the realm of the unspoken.39 It is true that injustice is everybody’s business, but it is also important to show how, in the history of the world, the accumulation of wealth is less the result of progress than of exploitation Criteria for Evaluating Collaboration If we accept the proposition that human relationships are always already marked by inequality, how can those persons who possess power ensure that they do not abuse their status, and how can subalterns “speak truth to power” without endangering the future of the collaboration or their role in it? What are the signs that enable the various collaborators to “read” the power dynamics in the development of a collaborative project? What criteria should be used to evaluate the nature and quality of collaboration?40 • Management of the body What are the visible signs in the body language exchanged among the various members of the collaboration? Here it is necessary, above all, to look at the dynamics between persons who have different degrees of power in the collaboration. Is this a matter of distance, of a mutually admiring gaze, of a positioning of authority, of closeness, of affection or of indifference? • Management of speech The idea of “giving a voice to” is problematic because it makes no distinction between the ability to speak and the right to speak. Take the example of Cathy Stubington (Something From Nothing),41 who is an instrument for the voices of others; she is always present, and we listen to her listening to others. Compare her voice with that of Edith Regier (Reparative Culture)42 and you will see quite a big difference with regard to the management of speech. It is not because speech is distributed (as in the expression “to give someone the right to speak”) that this is necessarily a problem of power. It is not a question of “giving the right to speak,” but of creating the conditions that make speech possible (see the example of the group Ouvrez votre coffre à trésors [Open your treasure chest]).43 • Conflict management Self-censorship is a real problem, but here I am thinking in particular of the concept of “creative conflict” as explained during the LEVIER training program. This does not mean that we should seek conflict; but when conflict occurs, you have to be able to air it in order to find a lasting solution that releases the tension in the group and puts out the fires of resentment. Have the interests and values of the various members of the group been articulated? Is responsibility for the conflict shared? Is reconciliation authentic? Is it able to change the relational dynamics as well as the perceptions of the self? 322 • Time management Time is one of the most precious resources in collaboration. In other words, collaboration requires a lot of time. A preoccupation with obtaining results can indicate that the project is not providing enough time for quality collaboration. Is there time allowed for exploration, for correcting errors and for understanding? For ensuring that all the members of the group possess the same information? Is there enough time for all the steps in the collaboration, especially those having to do with objectives and project design? • Management of power Power is something very subtle, especially in contexts where egalitarian discourse predominates (community action, certain art contexts, international co-operation, certain areas of academia, etc.). Are differences of status within the group explicit? Are the roles of the various members of the group clearly defined? Do the processes of consultation for decision-making permit the decisionmakers to be guided by the feelings and fears of the group? If decisions are not taken by consensus, are the decision-making criteria known and understood by all members of the group? What are the motivations and inspirations of the project organizers? • Management of diversity Are the persons responsible for the project aware of the many forms of diversity within the group? Not only do human beings come to a collaborative project with diverse personal objectives (selfrealization, career development, humanitarian concerns, curiosity, social networking, etc.), but they also come with varying traditions (spiritual tradition, socio-economic status, level of education, linguistic background, sexual or cultural identity, etc.). Some of these differences are more important than others at different times. Are the persons responsible for the project able to name these differences without resorting to stereotyping the participants? Are the participants open to discussion of these differences and their potential impact on their interpretation of reality or on the evolution of the collaboration? • Management of fear Many problems have a common source: fear. In every situation of collaboration, there are numerous fears: fear of losing oneself in the project, fear of losing the participation of the others, fear of failure, etc. One participant in the training program used the magical expression “internal saboteur” to describe the little voice within each of us that makes us doubt our ability and often by extension the intentions of others. Will the persons responsible for the project create conditions that allow this voice to express itself, to name the “internal saboteur” and to guide it so that it becomes a positive factor for the progress of the project as a whole? If we accept the proposition that human relationships are always already marked by inequality, how can those persons who possess power ensure that they do not abuse their status Why Work Together? Experience with the collaborative approach clearly shows that it is not possible to collaborate with everyone or in all situations. In a research project on the reception of popular music in the Democratic Republic of Congo, my colleague Lye Yoka and I called into question the “collaborative” nature of the project: We put this word in quotation marks because we are not sure that what we experienced is a true collaboration, or even, at the time of writing this article, whether collaboration should be the standard by which we measure the success of the project. After all, it has never been proven that collaboration can change the world.44 In a process of self-critical analysis, the obstacles to working (conflicts, differences of opinion, misunderstandings, etc.) can be used as elements of analysis in order not only to understand the cultural differences of the members of the team, but Bob W. White MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL 323 also to demystify the power relationships that characterize a project articulated through a model of “North-South” co-operation. Eric Luke Lassiter, in a book that provides an impressive overview of the question of collaboration as a methodological and ethical approach in the social sciences, emphasizes the danger of ethnocentrism in this area of research: “Again, collaborative ethnography has clear limitations, not the least of which is its emergence as a very, although not exclusively, US-centred project endowed with ethnocentrisms about the construction of equity, democracy and social justice.”45 Carole Condé and Karl Beveridge, Our Poverty is Their Power, 1992, 16” x 20”, black & white offset poster. © CARCC 2011. Our Poverty is Their Power looks at the trap of poverty created by the inadequacies of welfare. It was produced in collaboration with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and supported by the Toronto Labour Council. In spite of this criticism, which is quite justified, I continue to believe that the concept of collaboration deserves more attention, both in the research community and in the context of the struggle for justice and social change. Devora Neumark has pointed out the transformative potential of collaborative work: “…often what at first appears to be a disadvantageous (or worse) situation turns out in the end to be a real gift, an opportunity for healing.”46 The self is necessarily changed by the encounter with the Other, but this change involves certain risks: “Translating risk into symbolic language can help mitigate the doubt and the fear of what can sometimes feel like death as one lets go of old beliefs.”47 This is the real value of collaborative work. Through the externalization of values and experiences, and often through symbolic representation, the self becomes detached from aspects of identity that keep it from growing.48 But the advantages of collaboration are not limited to personal development, because the collaborative process has a great deal of potential for community action projects. Cathy Stubington’s video, Something from Nothing, shows that the collaborative approach provides access to a broader audience. As a result, the audience’s participation may take unexpected forms, often very personal, breaking out of the structures that reproduce the rigid distinction between “expert” and other forms of knowledge (see, for example, the letter campaign in the video La Piel de la memorià by Pilar Riano-Alcalà49). It could be said that the true value of a collaborative process is its ability to highlight the “co-produced” nature of knowledge, the fact that knowledge is constructed through communication between self and Other. The community ethnographic research project The Other Side of Middletown50 is an excellent example. In this book, the result of a long process of reflection and consultation between a group of US researchers and members of the Black community of the city of Muncie, Indiana, the authors’ objective was to bring these two communities closer together through an exploration of oral history. Muncie, also known under the pseudonym of Middletown, has been the object of observation and study by researchers in anthropology and sociology since at least the 1920s, when it was seen as an opportunity to document social and demographic changes in a “typical” city of the Midwestern US. Most studies had tended to describe Muncie as a homogeneous city populated only by whites, which was rather far from the truth, especially in view of the participation of members of its Black community in the civil rights movement. It was to correct this history that the ethnologist Eric Luke Lassiter and his long-time collaborator, the activist and politician Hurley Goodall, a native of Muncie, decided to organize a collaborative ethnography project on the role of this minority that had been invisible in the history of the community. The Other Side of Middletown included collaboration at many levels. First, the project was conceived at the boundary between academic research and the conservation of a marginalized community’s memory. Since the idea came out of a conversation between the two principal collaborators — and was not initiated by either one approaching the other — the objectives were articulated through a process of collective exchange, in part because Lassiter and Goodall already had experience working together. Secondly, there was collaboration among the various researchers in the group, each one of whom came from a different disciplinary tradition: anthropology, folklore studies, 324 history and communications. The diversity of the team highlighted the importance of having a deliberate approach with respect to methods, including the formation of teams made up of student researchers, but also of advisors from the community, and the systematic use of feedback techniques. For example, the team set up a process of consultation with members of the community for drafting the interview questions, but also for interpreting the data, an aspect that, according to Lassiter, is among the greatest challenges of any collaborative process.51 In spite of doubts expressed by Lassiter regarding the exhaustive nature of the work done, the results of this project seem significant for both the Black community of Muncie and the scholarly community. The project led not only to a collective book by some 20 contributors, but also to a public exhibition and several showings of the documentary film that was produced as part of the project. This experience, which the publishers present realistically, with failures and disappointments as well as successes, permits us to draw several conclusions on collaboration. First, we need to distinguish between the concept of reciprocity that is so dear to researchers in the social sciences (the idea that the researcher has to find a way to compensate the people he or she is working with) and the concept of collaboration.52 The classical anthropological model is based on the idea of reciprocity (and its corollary “the gift”) as compensating the members of a community for their generosity, hospitality and participation, but the reciprocity has no impact on the objectives of the project, which remain scientific objectives. The collaborative approach enables us to go beyond the paradigms of classical anthropology. It is not enough to “look over the shoulders” of our interlocutors53 or even to call for a “dialogic” approach,54 since both aim for the same result: to advance science, and not to rethink our relationship to knowledge. The Middletown project enables us to understand the conditions and dynamics of knowledge that arises from an encounter in which self and Other take part in articulating a temporary, but shared, meaning, not necessarily a spiritual or cultural communion.55 One of the greatest pitfalls in wanting to help the Other is the danger that the self will project its need for effectiveness (“It’s horrible! We have to do something!”) and recognition (“We are their only hope”) onto the others When we take up the challenge of producing something together, the implicit becomes explicit — not only the different aesthetic concepts, but also the power dynamics, the presuppositions and the objectives with respect to the work to be done together. Being obliged to produce something (a show, a video, a song or a text) has the effect of forcing collaborators to agree on a process, a target audience and a final product. If no agreement is achieved, the group falls apart and the collaboration fails. Without understanding the dynamics of this failure,56 it is impossible to promote a “collaborative ethics,” because in the abstract, the idea of collaboration falls too easily into the discourse of equality, reciprocity and sharing, concepts that can hide the true face of power.57 If we want to work to change the world, and if we believe that the simple fact of working together is a concrete way to reach this objective, we are obliged to scrutinize collaboration and seek guidelines that will enable us to finally discover its power, without cynicism but also without illusions. NOTES 1. See Bob’s participation in the program, pp. 101 and 106, and the reference to this activity in the critical summary by Rachel HeapLalonde, Between the Means and the Ends, pp. 109, 114 and 115. 2. At the request of the author these two passages have not been translated from the original French. The translations of these citations are as follows: Mole: small mammal found in Europe, the Americas, etc., with an oblong body; short velvety black or grey fur; an elongated snout; very small eyes; acute hearing and sense of smell; powerful forelimbs with broad paws and bare palms and sharp claws it uses to dig; lives underground and feeds on insects, worms, larvae; considered both useful and harmful to agriculture. – Dictionnaire Larousse I hardly see better than a mole; moreover, I will soon go into their kingdom, barely missing this one but missing you very much. – Voltaire 3. I would like to thank Devora Neumark for her help with this text and for suggesting a number of important references. Thanks also to Devora and to Louise Lachapelle for the invitation to take part in the workshop on which this article is based. 4. Bob W. White, “La démarche ethnographique et la collaboration” and “Écouter ensemble, penser tout haut : Musique populaire et la prise de conscience politique au Congo-Zaire (1980-1997, 2006),” in Bob W. White and Lye M. Yoka (eds.), L’ethnographie de l’écoute : Culture et société à travers la réception de la musique populaire à Kinshasa (Paris: L’Harmattan [forthcoming]). 5. Jean-Luc Nancy, Listening, (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007). Peter Szendy, Listen: A History of Our Ears, (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008). 6. David Michael Levin, The Listening Self: Personal Growth, Social Change and the Closure of Metaphysics (New York: Routledge, 1989). Brenda Ueland, Tell Me More: On the Fine Art of Listening, (Tucson: Kore Press, 1998). Unni Wikan, “Beyond the Words: The Power of Resonance,” American Ethnologist, 19 (August 3, 1992), pp. 460-482. 7. Luke Eric Lassiter, The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). 8. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol. I: “An Introduction” (New York: Vintage, 1990), p. 94. 9. Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, c1992-c2007). 10. Lila Abu-Lughod, “The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformations of Power Through Bedouin Women,” American Ethnologist, 17:1 (February 1990), pp. 41-55. Bob W. White 11. Bob W. White, Rumba Rules: The Politics of Dance Music in Mobutu’s Zaire (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008). 12. Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983). 13. Especially Remembering the Present: Painting and Popular History in Zaire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). But see also Power and Performance: Ethnographic Explorations Through Proverbial Wisdom and Theater in Shaba, Zaire (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1990). 14. Luke Eric Lassiter, p. 79 (see note 7). 15. Louise Lachapelle, L’art communautaire ou retrouver le chemin de la maison? See the text in this publication, pp. 52-61. 16. Louise Lachapelle, p. 53 (see note 15) 17. Louise Lachapelle, p. 54 (see note 15). 18. Luke Eric Lassiter (see note 7). 19. This second meaning corresponds to another sense of the term that is also quite common, that of political co-operation with the enemy, which is synonymous with betrayal. 20. See also the presentation of this video in the program schedule of the LEVIER Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program, p. 103, and the reference to this activity in the critical summary by Rachel Heap-Lalonde, Between the Means and the Ends, p. 112. 21. northlandposter.com/blog/2006/12/18/lila-watson-if-you-havecome-to-help-me-you-are-wasting-your-time-but-if-you-havecome-because-your-liberation-is-bound-up-with-mine-then-letus-work-together-2/. Consulted on June 23, 2008. 22. See note 21. 23. Julie Fiala, Collaborative Ethics, 2001 (essay available online at engrenagenoir.ca/blog/ressources/textes). Louise Lachapelle (see note 15). 24. James Ferguson, The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Vinh-Kim Nguyen, “Sida, ONG et la politique du témoignage en Afrique de l’Ouest,” Anthropologie et sociétés, 26:1 (2002). M. Pandolfi and D. Fassin, States of Emergency: Anthropology of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Zone Books, 2008). 25. The term “Third World” originated during the Cold War to identify the countries that were neither communist nor capitalist. The term is still used today despite the collapse of the Russian system and the negative connotations associated with it. 26. Talal Asad, ed., Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (London: Ithaca Press, 1973). 27. Devora Neumark, “I Am Because We Are…and in order to.” www. devoraneumark.com/site/texts/iambecauseweare.pdf, 2005, p. 8. Page consulted on November 6, 2009. 28. An installation in homage to women’s history in the form of a huge triangular table with 39 place settings with stylized plates honouring 39 famous women. The place settings were produced from 1974 to 1979 through the participation of hundreds of volunteers, and the installation was presented for the first time in 1979. 29. Julie Fiala, p. 9 (see note 23). 30. Particularly for the public performances in which Lacy collaborated with elderly women: Inevitable Associations, in 1976, and the two projects, Whisper, Whisper, the Waves, the Wind, in 1984, and Crystal Quilt, in 1987. 31. Julie Fiala, p. 12 (see note 23). 32. These two artists developed partnerships with various mainly Canadian union locals. 33. Unni Wikan, p. 463 (see note 6). 34. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1988). 35. Edward Said, “Representing the Colonized: Anthropology’s Interlocutors,” Critical Inquiry, 15 (1989), p. 223. On Franz Fanon, Martinique-born French psychiatrist and writer, one of the founders of Third Worldist thought. 36. Julie Fiala, p. 4 (see note 23). 37. Devora Neumark, p. 7 (see note 27). Compare with Hans-Georg Gadamer’s discussion of the “game” (see note 34). 38. Carl Rogers and Richard Farson, “Active Listening,” in David Kolb, Irwin Rubin and James MacIntyre, eds., Organizational Psychology (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1979). 39. See Devora Neumark (see note 27) on creativity in the collaborative process. MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL 325 40. This section is inspired by Habermas’s discussion of ethical discourse. In future writing I will develop this framework more fully in order to show its relevance to artistic and ethnographic practice. 41. Video documenting a community art project shown as an example during the LEVIER Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program. See the introduction to this video in the program schedule, p. 104, and the reference to this activity in the critical summary by Rachel Heap-Lalonde, Between the Means and the Ends, p. 119. 42. Video documenting a community art project shown as an example during the LEVIER Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program. See the introduction to this video in the program schedule, p. 103, and the reference to this activity in the critical summary by Rachel Heap-Lalonde, Between the Means and the Ends, p. 112. 43. Community art project produced with the organization Le CARRÉ. See the description of this project, pp. 154-158; see also the participation of the members of the project in the LEVIER Community Art Training and Exchange Program (2004), p. 67, in the Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program, p. 106, and in the training and exchange program Community Art : Imagination,Collaboration and Ethics, p. 122; see also the reference to these activities in the critical summaries by Rachel Heap-Lalonde, And If We were to Tell the Story... Thoughts on Our Journey, p. 77, and Between the Means and the Ends, p. 115. See also the video, Voir son intérieur pour mieux vivre dehors, made by the members of this project, in the compilation Documenting Collaboration inserted in the centre of this publication. 44. Bob W. White and Lye M. Yoka (see note 4). 45. Luke Eric Lassiter, p. xii (see note 7). 46. Devora Neumark (with Caroline Alexander Stevens), “Entre nous: Valeurs communes et pratiques créatives partagées,” Cahiers de l’action culturelle, 4:1 (2005), p. 28. 47. Devora Neumark, p. 7 (see note 27). 48. On the subject of silence, see the interview with Vincent Crapanzano: Chowra Makaremi, “Engaging with Silence: Interview with Vincent Crapanzano,” Altérités, 5:2 (2008), on-line journal at www.alterites.ca/vol5no2.html. 49. Video documenting a community art project shown as an example during the LEVIER Community Art Video Documentary Training and Exchange Program. See the introduction to this video in the program schedule, p. 104, and the reference to this activity in the critical summary by Rachel Heap-Lalonde, Between the Means and the Ends, p. 113. This project included a collection of objects related to significant memories for people in a neighbourhood of Medellìn, Colombia, who were asked to write letters to neighbours they did not know on the history of their object and their vision of the collective future of the neighbourhood; the letters were distributed at the end of the project. The philosopher and literary critic Edward Said (Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures (New York: Vintage, 1996) proposes the image of the “amateur” (as opposed to the role of “expert” usually played by the intellectual) as a model for intellectual intervention, using the word amateur to refer to knowledge that is not motivated by money or professional advancement. 50. Luke Eric Lassiter, Hurley Goodall, Elizabeth Campbell and Michelle Natasya Johnson, Eds., The Other Side of Middletown: Exploring Muncie’s African American Community (New York: Altamira Press, 2004). 51. Luke Eric Lassiter, Chapter 8 (see note 7). 52. Again according to Lassiter. 53. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973). 54. James Clifford, “On Ethnographic Authority,” in The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature and Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988). 55. Hans-Georg Gadamer (see note 34). 56. Michael H. Agar, “Towards an Ethnographic Language,” American Anthropologist, 84 (1983). 57. A good example of this abuse is the famous “shared anthropology” of Jean Rouch, the French filmmaker and ethnologist who did so much to help his “African friends,” but who, in the end, left them no intellectual legacy other than the cult of his personality (Bob White, “Caméra Intouchable,” Hors Champs (February 2005).