Walking the tightrope

This article examines the ethical and methodological challenges and possibilities of conducting public ethnography and studying far-right voters in precarious settings. Drawing on twenty-six years of longitudinal research in Brazil, I reflect on how long-standing relationships with interlocutors—many of whom have adopted authoritarian views over time—can be sustained amid deep political disagreement and contested truths. As a public scholar, I examine how visibility and transparency have reshaped both the ethnographic encounter and ethnographic authority, making politics an unavoidable dimension of fieldwork. The analysis foregrounds the emotional and political tightrope walked by ethnographers who must balance empathy, nuance, and critique. The paper shows how mutual interests, long-term trust, and agonistic intimacy make it possible to build understanding without endorsement. Ultimately, I argue that public ethnography and studying ideological opponents produce an irresolvable contradiction best met through transparency, reflexive limits, and an acceptance of coeval change and contested truths.