Diving into the theory, methods, and forms of documentary has proved to be inspiring and encouraging for me. I have never been a huge fan of feature films; however, I have always found documentaries engaging, interesting, and capable of expanding my understanding of human culture—even if their creation has been historically challenging. I like to think I have always appreciated the potential, believed in the possibilities and power of creating documentaries, and trusted the issues (like other academic fields) could be ironed out as more makers and ethnologist/anthropologist of color joined the field.

As a woman of color, I have always approached documentaries and/or visual anthropology with skepticism regarding the authority of the creators. My own questions often framed my experience and viewing. Who defines “exotic”? Who defines “the other”? Who decides which cultures are observed, recorded, and reflected? And what of those cultures are studied and deemed important?

As I’ve read throughout the introductory readings in Principles of Visual Anthropology, I have realized a lot of my concerns and instincts were aligned with concerns inherit in the creation of visual anthropology work. For example, one of the central issues that needs to be addressed routinely in the creation of documentaries and visual anthropology is the relationship between the creator and the observed, as well as the inherit bias of the filmmaker. Margaret Mead addresses this in her essay, “Visual Anthropology in a Discipline of Words,” stating that despite the cooperation between makers and subjects, there exists an inherit possibility of the filmmaker imposing his view of the culture and people on the film that she feels “cannot…ever be entirely prevented” (7). Mead’s approach to overcoming this “is the articulate, imaginative inclusion in the whole process of the people who are being filmed” (8). And while this is ideal, I do believe there are some barriers to the complete implementation of this that could pose challenges to creation. In my opinion, this inherit bias can be overcome by allowing the observed to define, completely and unequivocally, their lives, environments, and observed actions. This allows the observed to create meaning that is aligned, as close as possible, to the original and initial actions under observation.

            The truth is there is no creation, whether produced by an outsider or created from inside of a culture that will be without bias and a cultural or personal lens. This central, personal bias permeates all we do, whether we acknowledge it or not. Mead accounts for the intrinsic bias of the maker and the observed by stating we must abandon ideas of “Culture-free procedures, but…[incorporate] different culturally based viewpoints” (8). I agree, and believe that creating from a place of recognized differences, allows ethnographic productions to speak for the cultures they are meant to observe, record, and reproduce. One point that Mead makes that drives this point home, is that the work of ethnologists and visual anthropologists “give our understanding of human history and human potentialities a reliable, reproducible, analyzable corpus” that will permit and foster future scholarship (8-9). My stance is that this is the core purpose of visual anthropology. We must recognize that the work being done is for the implicit creation of work that will advance cultural understanding and scholarship, as well as document and preserve human history.

            “Kung Fu Grandma” is a great example of documentary work that elevates the voice of the observed over the “God in the sky” voice of a narrator that would include bias, and perpetuate a colonialist viewpoint of a modern cultural phenomenon. In the short documentary, the focus is on a current practice for elder women to take up self-defense in effort to protect themselves from violate sexual predators. The documentary takes place in Korogocho, Kenya, a place seated at the intersection of extreme poverty and extreme violence. The acts of violence perpetuated against these elder women are born out of cultural myth that sex with an elder protects a man from AIDS. As the women tell their stories, “Kung Fu Grandma” also allows men and others from the community to extrapolate (beyond the stated myth) why such violence is enacted upon the elder women. Allowing the community to speak for itself allows the experiences of the women (and their communities) to be authentically presented from their own experiences and biases, instead of being culturally framed by an outsider.

            The idea that these elders have to learn how to physically protect themselves instead of being protected sickens me, quite honestly. Witnessing the women draw upon internal strength, courage, and bravery to overcome their current hardship remotely eases my feeling of malaise. They are literally and figuratively using their voices, and refusing to be further victimized. I appreciate that Kung Fu Grandma does not further strip these women of their voices, and allows them to tell their story and create meaning out of a horrible environment. In turn, this documentary becomes a testament to their strength, and a preservation of their strength. All of which becomes available for future generations to study and use to make and analyze meaning.

Works Cited

Mead, Margaret. “Visual Anthropology in a Discipline of Words.” Principles of Visual Visual Anthropology,

edited by Paul Hockings, Mouton de Gruyter, 2003, pp. 3-10.

Park, Jeong-One. “Kung Fu Grandma.” Vimeo, 3 Nov. 2013, https://vimeo.com/78495943.