It's worth holding in mind a) the inextricability of the ethnographic mode with the colonial missionary project and b) the likelihood of unintended consequences over intended ones, and the very different positions of power which are held in the ethnographic encounter.
(A) there is nothing inherently "colonial" about the practice of ethnography. How ethnography is done, by which agents, in which historical contexts, and for what purposes is what matters. I think we risk confusing the histortical origins of anthropology with field methods. (B) There is no law, that I know of, that will convince me that unintended consequences are more likely than intended ones. What is the basis for the assertion? Finally, the issue of power differentials has been hammered to death and I was never really impressed by the lack of realism of these arguments. I have conducted research with people who could buy and sell me at a whim, other who could have snuffed me out at the snap of the fingers, and others that had over three decades of experience in dealing with the media, politicians, ministries, or who were themselves political leaders. I was some kid getting an "anthro" degree. There are power differentials, sure, but not necessarily in the single direction you suggest. Cheers, Dr Maximilian C. Forte Assistant Professor in Anthropology Department of Anthropology and Sociology University College of Cape Breton P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1N 1A3 Tel: 902-563-1947 Fax: 902-563-1247 E-mail: max_forte@uccb.ca Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/