Critical Review: Clifford

In his account of discourses, Clifford refers to Ricoeur's contention that "for discourse to become text it must become 'autonomous'" (39).  While he does not disagree with this proclamation, he does disagree with the possibility of any text fulfilling this requirement.  He argues that the voice of the ethnographer, either stated or implied, can never be fully removed from the discourse, and thus the discourse can never transcend dialogue to become text.  The concept that there can be no true texts in turn means that there can be no authoritative depiction of the other.  By not attempting to transcend the voice of the ethnographer, the ethnographer maintains honesty at the expense of authoritative systemization.  Clifford argues that by keeping the focus on the voice the ethnographer can "resist the pull toward authoritative representation of the other" (44).  This represents a shift in ideals from seeking conclusions to sharing experiences.  While I do not argue that this change creates a more honest portrayal of the subject, I wonder how it will affect ethnomusicologists studying cultures they are a part of.  

Question:  With so much emphasis on maintaining the sense of the "other," and thus the distinction between the ethnomusicologist and the culture they choose to study, how will ethnomusicologists studying their own culture maintain a strict sense of the "other" when it exists not as a distinction within discourse between the ethnomusicologist and their subject, but between the ethnomusicologist and their audience?  Is a sense of dialogue to be artificially created between the ethnomusicologist and their audience?  Should they attempt to create a sense of "otherness" from within the "other" itself, and thus take the position of an ethnomusicologist attempting to falsely assume a fictional relationship with the subject that ironically mirrors the very situation they were trying to circumvent?