Fictions of Feminist Ethnography - Jozi Chaet

Josephine Chaet

GWS 502.01 – Feminist Knowledge Production

Professor Naber

Blog Post Two – Fictions of Feminist Ethnography

January 19, 2017

Relevance of the Text to Research Generally

While Kamala Visweswaran’s discussion concerning the colonization of the academy is, like Tuhwai Smith’s examination, an underlying theme throughout much of the text, the consideration of the colonial role of the social sciences, and particularly of anthropology, is explicitly outlined throughout Visweswaran’s chapter concerning the “Feminist Ethnography as a Failure”. The following post primarily focuses on Visweswaran’s presentation of the concept of homework embedded within the discussion regarding the continued colonization of the discipline that is contained in chapter six. In doing so, this post endeavors to explore the implications of that analysis, and address the potential ways in which it relates to my own developing research.

Prior to moving into an examination of Visweswaran’s concept of homework and the repercussions of that analysis, however, it is useful to first provide a brief summary of the text as a whole, it an effort to appropriately situate the contents of the remainder of this post. Over the course of her Fictions of Feminist Ethnography, Visweswaran explores some of the current problems and quandaries that confront feminist theory and practice (Visweswaran 1994, 10). In doing so, Visweswaran examines the way in which ethnographic accounts are constructed within the academy (Visweswaran 1994, 15) in an effort to “better understand the politics of representation, how different narrative strategies may be authorized at specific moments in history by complex negotiations of community, identity, and accountability” (Visweswaran 1994, 15). Consequently, Visweswaran suggests that “there are demonstrable fictions of ethnography in the constitution of knowledge, power, and authority in anthropological texts, and that [we should] consider fiction as ethnography” (Visweswaran 1994, 16; italics in original). Moreover, drawing on the “points of rupture and acts of transgression underscoring the problems of identification” (Visweswaran 1994, 24), Visweswaran highlights the inherent power dynamic within anthropological inquiry, and encourages an investigation concerning “when and why women do talk…what strictures are placed on their speech, what avenues of creativity they have appropriated, what degrees of freedom they possess” (Visweswaran 1994, 30). Thus, Visweswaran provides a critical way to examine the process of feminist research, as well as interrogate the work that is considered to be feminist ethnography.

Embedded within that discussion, then, is Visweswaran’s specific examination or exploration of the distinction between doing homework and doing fieldwork (Visweswaran 1994, 101). Over the course of the sixth chapter of the text, Visweswaran discusses the notion of “ethnographic and epistemic failure” (Visweswaran 1994, 99) and acknowledges the “‘possibilities of failure’” (Visweswaran 1994, 100), in order to “‘question the authority of the investigating subject without paralyzing her, persistently transforming conditions of impossibility into possibility’” (Visweswaran 1994, 100). In turn, Visweswaran suggests that it is possible for feminist ethnographers to “seek out new possibilities engendered by the recognition of failure, as well as the limiting features of its acknowledgement” (Visweswaran 1994, 100). In an effort to accomplish that goal, Visweswaran poses “the question of returning to the library” (Visweswaran 1994, 101). In particular, Visweswaran advocates for the questioning of “heretofore unexamined points of privilege and blindness [that form] the basis of an accountable positioning that seeks to locate itself in and against the master discourses of race, class, and sexuality” (Visweswaran 1994, 104). Thus, in outlining her understanding of the notion of homework, Visweswaran highlights the importance of and value in interrogating places of home in order to effectively expand the potential of ethnographic work (Visweswaran 1994, 113). In effect, by grappling with and making an effort to understand the (relative) notion of home, it is at once possible to expand the research that can be done (both inwards and outwards) and more fully examine the place of the researcher within that reflexive work.      

Applications to Real or Imagined Projects

As stated in last week’s blog post, my work very broadly examines the capacity for civil society in Jordan, through the lens of the women’s movement in relation to honor-based violence. As I have begun to seriously think about my work (i.e., going into the field, the types of research question I have developed for myself, and the things I want to take away from this work over the next several years), I have spent a lot of time thinking about and attempting to figure out my position as a researcher in relation to the work that I want to do as an anthropologist at a very abstract/intangible level. I order to do that, I have spent a lot of time doing actual homework – researching the work concerning the historical establishment of the modern Jordanian state, the development of the women’s movement throughout the Middle East an in Jordan specifically, and the extant work that has been done concerning the intersection between the evolution of the country and the advancement of the women’s movement. The argument Visweswaran presents, however, has made it abundantly clear that while homework in the literal sense is a necessary component of situating my work effectively, that research is not sufficient. In order to position myself within my work in a way that is successful, effective, conscious, and self-aware, I will have to undertake exploratory work that cannot be completed in the library. I must do work to understand my history, place, and perspective as a researcher, a feminist, and a woman. I am, at this moment, unsure of the way to best begin that endeavor, for the academic training that I have received has generally encouraged distance and objectivity; nevertheless, I believe that I am prepared to embark on this part of my research, and challenge myself to do homework beyond the realm of books.

Discussion Questions

Going forward, I am interested in exploring questions that are, admittedly, similar to the self-reflexive inquiries I posed last week in reference to Tuhiwai Smith's Decolonizing Methodologies –

In what ways does positionality impact the theoretical framework that is used, or the framework that can be used most effectively? How can I begin to do the homework that is necessary to position myself within my work? How does that work impact the theoretical foundation of the methods that I have proposed in an effort to answer the research questions that I have asked?
Concepts to Cover in Class/Clarifying Questions
How should/can we (as scholars, as social scientists, as anthropologists) deal with betrayal, refusal, and failure, as presented by Visweswaran? What is gained from Visweswaran's narrative style of the text? What is lost? (In other words, does the style in which she writes lend legitimacy to her argument or detract from her over-arching assertions? What constitutes legitimacy?) What do we learn from the final chapter?