Critical Review: Clifford 1988 and Seeger 1992

Clifford's article essentially describes the impossibility to satisfactorily complete an ethnographic study. While he ultimately concedes and acknowledges that ethnographic writing is alive in some manner, he remarks that it is not without great struggle. I found his pessimism to contrast greatly with Seeger's article. Seeger does also acknowledges the importance of considering elements of musical performance beyond the obvious, such as producers, managers and contractors. He uses a well-known metaphor of blind men feeling parts of an elephant and each perceiving the animal to have wildly different characteristics. While he does point out that all aspects of music making must be examined to gain a coherent whole, he does so with an encouraging and optimistic tone. His article aims to equip the reader with knowledge of how to approach an ethnographic study rather than criticize the discipline and role of authority in the process. This makes me wonder how the personal experiences of the two authors have affected their feelings towards ethnographic studies, and why they seem to present such different feelings.

To what extent would an ethnographic study need to meet Clifford's ideal conditions to be considered accurate or of value? Also, despite holding obvious bias, in some way, wouldn't an ethnographic study done on a community by a member of the community be the most in depth and accurate since the member would be fully immersed and fully understand its intricacies?