Ethnography Schmography [Lusk]

I'm a little confused by Ethnography. So I'm going to try and think it aloud.

Okay.
Ethnography is defined as "the scientific description of peoples and cultures with their customs, habits, and mutual differences." That makes sense to me. To study other forms of art (for our argument) with the awareness that comparing it to your own culture is not helpful to the study. That makes complete sense to me. How else could we study other cultures? And are WE involved in this study of other cultures? Or is it the whole 'this is how we do it' and 'this is how they do it'.
(Unless I'm REAL off base with this definition.)

So... the dangers of this perhaps fall into our labeling of things, as Kaeliinohomoku points out. She delves into this by saying that the term 'ethnic' doesn't really mean what it means. But, rather one associates it with 'heathen', 'pagan', etc. 

In Jena's post she discusses how ethnography in the dramaturgy of Richard could have only helped the production. This fascinates me. We are no longer talking about obviously different cultures, such as Ballet vs. Hopi dances, but we are delving into subcultures. I think perhaps that this is where ethnography can became a huge headache. I feel like we could potentially fall into this trap of obsessing over the definition/labels of things. As scholars, we really like to know what people are saying when they are communicating their knowledge to us (Kaeliinohomoku has a whole section on the importance of definitions), but where does it end? Is there a point we can stop discussing the definition of the thing and talk about the thing? 

And I feel torn. Right now. Half of me wants to be that free spirited hippy in the quad smoking a joint, rocking out to some acoustic guitar, telling people we are ALL ONE and that LOVE is all we need. And the other half understands the importance of recognizing... no. We are not all one. We all have different sections and subsections that divide SO MUCH that we only stop when we reach the individual. And that's awesome! Both sides excite me completely. But I'm not sure which one would be the best approach in discussing things from a scholarly viewpoint. 

I do think, though, that there must be a line drawn. Between Ethnography and some other type of study. Jena mentioned the Bike Gang motif and how it was unsuccessful and I agree.  And I am immediately taken back to when, a couple years ago, we put on Angels in America. And there was some talk about the upset when a straight man was cast as the lead character, Prior, and that a heterosexual would be directing the show. The assumptions that were made upon these two individuals coincide with this idea that they cannot possibly portray this queer subculture accurate. How could they? They aren't apart of it.  (And homosexuality is a very exclusive club. Secret meetings and all that). 

That's where we run into trouble. The notion that these two very smart, very professional people could not portray the life of a gay man in the 80's because what....? They WEREN'T a gay man in the 80's? That's ridiculous. Especially in theatre. I'm not even sure the man who wrote it, if put in the role of Prior, could live up to some people's expectations of what it was like to be that individual with those circumstances. 

Once we start putting subcultures into the category of Ethnography... it seems too easy for those individuals to not allow access. To not even consider that someone outside of their circle, could possibly know what it was like to be them. Let alone PORTRAY them on stage. And if that starts happening too much... the theatre could become the most boring or most exciting place ever. 

(Going back and reading this I understand that it's real messy. It all stems from me not quite grasping the definition. So I hope to solidify these thoughts more after our discussion.)