Introduction It is striking that anthropological discussions about epistemology and ethno- graphic writing seem to have little impact on similar debates in the wider arena of the social and cultural sciences. This is surprising, given that these longstand- ing debates in anthropology straddle the concerns of reflexive epistemologies (Davies & Stodulka, 2019; Sluka & Robben, 2012). Moreover, anthropology’s partialism and particularism seem to have trickled into critical public discourses about subjectivity, hybridity and culture theory (Liebert, 2016; Reckwitz, 2000, 2008; Slaby, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). Despite this, anthropology’s contribution remains undisclosed, and isolated at best. If anthropological practices of research- ing and writing are acknowledged within interdisciplinary and public debates of methodology and epistemology, it is predominantly restricted to one concept: ‘ethnography’ (Gable, 2014; Ingold, 2014). Some anthropologists argue that the term ‘ethnography’ has been applied to such a variety of settings and scientific practices that “ethnographic [emphasis added] appears to be a modish substitute for qualitative, [and] offends every prin- ciple of proper, rigorous anthropological inquiry – including long-term and open- ended commitment, generous attentiveness, relational depth, and sensitivity to context” (Ingold, 2014, 384). Anthropologist Tim Ingold provocatively suggests giving up the term ‘ethnographic’ altogether, because its intellectual erosion no longer does justice “to the fieldwork in which these encounters take place, to the methods by which we prosecute it, or to the knowledge that grows therefrom. Indeed, to characterize encounters, fieldwork, methods and knowledge as eth- nographic is positively misleading” (ibid., 385). We share Ingold’s concerns, but instead of refuting the term, we intend to formulate a ‘call to arms’ that challenges anthropologists to better communicate what is at stake when they do ethnography, in a language that also speaks to non-anthropologists. Many anthropologists have defined ethnography in negative terms – it is not qualitative social science, it is not travel writing, it is not fiction, it is not science, it is not art (Ingold, 2014; Sanjek, 1991). Others have highlighted its long-term and open-ended commitment that does not end with fieldwork, its ethical responsibility, participatory-observation Chapter 16 Fieldwork, ethnography and the empirical affect montage Thomas Stodulka, Samia Dinkelaker and Ferdiansyah Thajib