Cultural Studies as Methodology

Abu-Lughod argues that “’culture operates in anthropological discourse to enforce separations that inevitably carry a sense of hierarchy” (137-38). I’m most curious about her assertion that anthropologists retain their identities by making the “communities they study seem other” (139). I’m wondering if time itself “others” historical subjects. Readings so far offer methodologies to overcome disciplinary practices that reinforce/perpetuate “othering,” but what about time itself? Isn’t past/present just another form of hierarchy? Abu-Lughod also points to “objections to the work of feminist or native or semi-native anthropologists” that “betray the persistence of ideals of objectivity” (141). As a historian, I do not believe in objectivity. All historical analysis/interpretation is subjective. We seek out problems to explain, generally situated within a conflict we already characterize in terms of right and wrong. However, considering time as a power I may potentially wield over my subjects, particularly the social workers/VISTA volunteers, and my desire to advocate for the “potentially delinquent” girls, does my subjectivity become more problematic?

I continue to struggle with conceptualizing the role culture will play in my project, but Hall offers some ideas for further thought (especially important because I will be comparing different migrant groups in specific neighborhoods, and also hope to include transnational or comparative component looking at Jamaican girls at London’s Toynbee Hall). If identity is a production which is never complete, what are the implications of presenting a snap-shot of that productive process? Identity is self-construction, but when does it embrace and perpetuate otherness? Do girls and young women labeled potentially delinquent have a distinct sub-culture? (Even in addition to membership in another sub-culture, i.e. zoots, punks, rockers, which are widely identified as oppositional.) 

According to Bhabha, mimicry is colonized subjects adopting the culture of the colonizer, which is highly problematic because it confuses boundaries necessary for domination. I’m wondering if the limitations on my girls in terms of opportunities (charm school instead of social work projects) could be read as an effort to maintain the cultural boundary between them as working-class migrants, and the middle- and upper-class social workers and VISTA volunteers. Othered for their perceived potential delinquency, is full rehabilitation somehow equally threatening?

Clifford was a nice wrap-up for my thoughts. My first question of Abu-Lughod was what is the impact of location on identity? I really like his concept of “indigenous commuting.” Migration Studies and some transnational histories explore similar themes, including cultural networks that result in two way exchanges with social and political impacts in both locations. Regarding articulation, is the behavior of “potentially delinquent” girls cultural? Not as sub-culture, as mentioned above, but culture originating from their point of origin that becomes problematic once it migrates. This is especially interesting if this is a clash between different American cultures. For example, rural children spend a lot of time outside. When this persists in urban space, does that alone signify potentially delinquent? Might there be other examples of this? Are these cultural practices the ways potentially delinquent girls became visible to social workers?