View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Appendix Two – The Methodology in Action - Page A2-3
Ironically, Stephen’s other work has been subject to intense and detailed criticism from
anthropological colleagues (Mosko, 1997) for her use of psychoanalytic concepts. In
contrast, it can be argued that in her work on Cargo Cults she takes on a very straw man
in an old-fashioned and highly individualized application of psychoanalytic ideas,
which she then dismisses. Had Stephen been able to avail herself of group-analytic
ethnography, the phenomena she describes (including a disruption and potential
renegotiation of the social order) would have been extremely amenable to consideration
in these terms. For example, her description of the process and features of these group
and cultural phenomena has intriguing overlap with the notion of Garland’s (1982)
mentioned above, that the group has to attend not only to the problem but also to the
non-problem, that of how to create a milieu where members’ behaviour is not met with
the interactive responses that they expect.
To conclude this example, this is a case where the model has clear utility, combining the
psychoanalytic possibility of opening up internal worlds, whilst also being able to
encompass the social phenomena contextual to apparently individualised manifestations
of change.
Identicide – model used to theorise
This second example is one where a researcher in a related field (geography) considers
aspects of the destructive phenomena of war. Consideration of her data from a group-
analytic ethnographic perspective enables recognition of processes also present in other
contexts, such as the practice of psychotherapy, and training for that practice.
Meharg (2001) considers the deliberate destruction of cultural icons as part of the
process of war as a process of identicide. She cites as examples the destruction of the