Caribbean Diaspora in the USA: Diversity of Caribbean Religions in New York City

The Multiple Dimensions of Caribbean Culture 3
always be construed on the basis of ethnographical data. Otherwise the distance
between the two central positions of every anthropological study, the participant’s
observer and the acting subject, would be too large. We need, of course, a certain
kind of distance if we do not want to reduce anthropology to ventriloquism (see
Geertz 1993b). Nonetheless, ethnographical research should not create mute objects;
human beings are the centre of all ethnographical research, not objects.
The interpretation of individual data often creates problems. Because anthropology
is frequently focused on groups, whether ethnic or social, it is in danger of losing
sight of the individual or generalizing too quickly. The broad expressions ‘Haitians’,
‘Cubans’ and so on are often spoken while forgetting that individuals gave us their
time in order to explain their world to us; individuals allowed us to intrude into their
private worlds; individuals invited us in to be with their families. Literature studies,
on the other hand, concentrate on authors, novels or poems, and hence on singular
works or persons. Literature studies could therefore teach anthropology something
about the conservation of individuality, if we allowed them into our field.
On the basis of these considerations, when I describe Caribbean religious
communities in New York City I will present only individual versions, never those
of the whole religion or the whole Caribbean community. I allow myself the luxury
of presenting the particular, on which I will base my theoretical debate. Thus the
ethnographical research does not present a contextualization of a theory but rather
the ethnographical data inspires theoretical debate. Any ethnographical research
presents a multiple reading of reality (da Matta 1991: 241), and should preserve
the ‘voice’ of the actors (even in a non-verbatim way). The responsibility of the
anthropologist is to extract the perspective of the partners and hence to present their
story, their reality and their cultural context (Geertz 1993b: 140). In doing so the other
reality loses the exotic image and becomes familiar. Dealing with foreign realities
includes the danger of construing them with smoothed out contradictions and breaks.
However, the particularity of ethnographic research is to show the contradictions
and not to palliate them in spite of all the pressure. 1 Hence throughout this book I
will hint at problems in finding common categories, for instance common names or
common ways of self-representation. As illustration I will include some snapshots
which allow some insights into Caribbean diversity. These snapshots are, of course,
subjective impressions which I got during my ‘observant participation’ and which
reflect the debate with Otherness. According to Michael Pye, observant participation
is a particularly necessary supplement in the study of religions (2000: 78–9). Small
contradictions and ambivalent moments are visible only during daily situations,
observable only through participation. Small gestures and interpersonal interaction
sometimes allow us better insight than long interviews. For example, people often
cannot suppress a harsh word or a rude gesture – though they are often more reluctant
to verbalize their disapproval towards strangers. These small and very human
situations show how cultures are lived. Hence I will ‘illustrate’ my theoretical debate
with such situations. However, these ‘pictures’, the descriptions of the situations, are
not only illustrations but also characterizations of certain aspects which contradict
1 See, for example, Kohl 2000: 80–81 about the problematic position of anthropologists
in legal cases.