Animals and the Limits of Ethnography

Is ethnography (as constituted in the social sciences) a reliable method with which to understand interspecies intersubjectivity? Can a method that has become a cornerstone approach to a qualitative understanding of humans for more than a century interrogate the social ties between humans and animals? Will it illuminate the similarities and differences between humans and their animal familiars? Using a programmatic approach to ethnography, and drawing on lessons from cyber ethnography, this article examines the challenges facing an ethnography that takes animals seriously as social beings and ethnographic subjects. The ability of ethnography to deliver a faithful portrait of being relies in large part on the communicative trust developed between ethnographers and their participants and interlocutors; it lies in the quality of the intersubjective exchange. Communicative intersubjective trust is both the paragon quality one wants in ethnographic social exchange and the most ill-defined and difficult to ascertain. So much ethnographic authority is underpinned by the hope that ethnographers have understood the people they work with in their terms and can faithfully re-present and interpret that world view. This article argues that the tricky and ambiguous business of intersubjective exchange poses important methodological questions for anthrozoology.