Abu-Lughod’s
“Writing Against Culture” examines the notion of the self and other in
anthropological research. She uses the
figures of the feminist and “halfie” researcher to address problematic distinctions
between insider/outsider and the power dynamics that can be obscured in social
scientific knowledge. These critiques
connect to Visweswaran and Tuhiwai Smith’s interventions as they relate to
questions of betrayal, relations of domination, and imperialism that structures
Western knowledge. The feminist and
halfie help to reveal complications inherent in research: positionality as
researchers are never “outside” of power in relation to communities of study, writing
to multiple audiences, and power distinctions even among seemingly “native”
researchers. She highlights these power dynamics to illustrate how the concept
of “culture” is reified in research, and that it acts as a “dividing
practice”(143) that naturalizes difference and produces the Other. Abu-Lughod reveals how culture, typically
used to argue against difference emerging from nature and biology, can in fact
take on an essentialist form. The usage
of “culture” is steeped in power relations: “shadowed by coherence,
timelessness, and discreteness, [culture] is the prime anthropological tool for
making ‘other,’ and difference”(147).
She argues for the need to write against culture and describes
ethnographies of the particular as one tool that can challenge the reification
of cultural categories and difference.
I appreciate Abu-Lughod’s critique of
generalizability and overemphasizing cultural coherence in research. She describes how cultural theories tend to
overemphasize coherence of the social group, leading to the notion that a
community is bounded and discrete (146).
Her approach to “culture” and its relation to difference and other-ness
are particularly important for destabilizing taken for granted categories in
our own research. Both of these aspects
of research are often taken as starting points in the academy, built into the
processes like the IRB where you have to clearly define your sample. The first step in studying a social group is
to coherently identify the group and its bounds. Even within this simple act, as a researcher
you are imposing boundaries upon a group.
Conducting my interview study, I struggled thinking about the boundaries
of queer and trans communities, how this intersects with categories, and
attempted not impose my own boundaries of who fit the research protocol. I struggled with how to encompass folks who
might identify as gender variant but might not easily relate to the umbrella of
trans- genderqueer folks, butch women, assigned female at birth femme women,
etc. And in the process of writing about
a really gender diverse group, I struggled with my desire to be coherent in categorizing
the participants but also wanting to embrace the particulars of their
experiences. As I think about future
research, I still struggle with messy questions about representation and the
practical application of this. What
would it look like to focus on the particulars and differences of my research
participants, and not have to talk about the generalizable patterns?
Question:
Abu-Lughod describes the professional risks of alternative
research strategies and how they are not often seen as legitimate. As a grad student, I’m told to have a big
enough sample size and argue for how research on subordinated groups is
generalizable to broader social issues.
How can we promote and conduct “ethnographies of the particular” within
the constraints of the academy? And can
we use alternative methods in ways that are not just marginalized in the
academy, actively engaging and challenging more hegemonic forms of knowledge in
the discipline?
No comments:
Post a Comment