Writing Against Culture - Jozi Chaet

Josephine Chaet

GWS 502.01 –Feminist Knowledge Production

Professor Naber

Blog Post Three – Writing Against Culture

January 20, 2017

Relevance of the Text to Research Generally

Over the course of the past week, the information presented throughout the readings has primarily focused on the way in which the anthropological work that is conducted by feminist and indigenous researchers has the potential to challenge dominant narratives that have historically served to enforce separations, reify divisions, and create divisive hierarchies. Like both Tuhiwai Smith and Visweswaran, Lila Abu-Lughod, Homi Bhabha, Stuart Hall, James Clifford, and Vicente Diaz and J. Kauanui suggest that through an exploration of identity and representation, it is possible for researchers to “subvert the most problematic connotations of culture: homogeneity, coherence, and timelessness” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 476). In turn, Hall explicitly suggests that the formation of cultural identity is not only a discovery of shared history and common ancestry (Hall 1994, 393), but is importantly a recognition of the different ways in which individuals are positioned by, and thus position themselves within, the multi-faceted and layered narratives of the past as well (Hall 1994, 394). While the following post cannot successfully engage with all of the aforementioned readings, this post attempts to engage with the primary concept addressed over the course of all five of the articles - namely the notion of the development of identity and the place of self within research. In particular, this post focuses on the tension between selves and others (Abu-Lughod 1991, 466) in relation to feminist anthropology identified by Abu-Lughod. 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 and emerging research.

Throughout her discussion concerning the implications of the concept of culture within anthropological discourse, Abu-Lughod reflects on the “conventional nature and political effects” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 466) of the separation between the self and the other, and challenges the understanding of culture upon which that division depends (Abu-Lughod 1991, 466). In doing so, Abu-Lughod examines the way in which feminist anthropology and feminist theory has contributed to the “the hegemony of the distinctive-other tradition” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 467) that has historically characterized the discipline. Specifically, Abu-Lughod states that “if anthropology continues to be practiced as the study by an unproblematic and unmarked Western self of found ‘others’…feminist theory, an academic practice that also traffics in selves and others, has in its relatively short history come to realize the danger of treating selves and others as givens” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 467). In particular, Abu-Lughod notes that the crisis experienced within feminist theory that succeeded “feminist attempts to turn those who had been constituted as others into selves…was the problem of ‘difference’” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 468). In effect, once “‘women’ is deconstructed into ‘women’ and ‘gender’ is recognized to have no fixed referents, feminism itself dissolves as a theory that can reflect the voice of a naturalized or essentialized speaker” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 468). Accordingly to Abu-Lughod, that crisis subsequently raises questions concerning the ability of feminist scholars to relate to their subject matter, as well as the ability of those same academics to “assume the self of anthropology” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 468) and position themselves effectively within their work.

Applications to Real or Imagined Projects

As a woman researching the capacity for civil society, female advocacy, and the women’s movement in the Middle East, and in Jordan specifically, Abu-Lughod’s discussion regarding feminist anthropology and feminist theory spoke to a number of the questions I have been asking myself while working on developing my own project, particularly after last week’s conversation regarding positionality. Since beginning to think about my research in a serious way, I have struggled with the tension between, as Abu-Lughod states, letting the women speak and the danger of reifying difference within the context of my work, as well as my uncertainty regarding the best way to assuage those uncertainties. I hope that by asking questions that acknowledge the multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, and complex development of female activism in Jordan, I will have the capacity to explore the possibilities for and implications of female advocacy and activism in a way that challenges the historic crisis of feminist anthropology. In addition to asking the ‘right’ questions, however, Abu-Lughod’s discussion, like Visweswaran’s analysis, has made it increasingly evident that it is necessary to “betray the persistence of ideals of objectivity” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 468) in order to “struggle in poignant ways with multiple accountabilit[ies]” (Abu-Lughod 1991, 469). In effect, I must confront my own position within my work in order to be accountable to the different audiences associated with feminist scholarship; I am unsure abut whether acknowledging my position is enough – last week, while discussing positionality, we spent some time at the end of class considering how to be accountable researchers within our own fields, and while I think that recognizing where I stand as a researcher is certainly an important step, I am less certain about the steps that come after. I am not completely sure if this concern makes sense, or is well thought-out at the moment, but it is something that I have been mulling over the past few weeks, and is an over-arching uncertainty that I look forward to exploring in more detail as the semester continues.

Discussion Questions

At the moment, however, I have been thinking about a few particular, inter-related questions –

What happens (to theoretical foundation, to the type of research that is conducted, the sorts of questions that are asked) when the subject of study is also, at least in some way/to some extent, a ‘self’? In what way(s) does that impact the ability of feminist anthropologists to relate to their subject, and the validity of the work that is conducted? How can feminist anthropologists effectively approach their work in a way that does not reaffirm the problems associated with the crisis of feminism discussed by Abu-Lughod?

Clarifying Questions

While this post largely focused on Abu-Lughod’s article, I had some questions regarding the other articles we read for this week –

Hall suggests that every “regime of representation is a regime of power formed…by the fatal couplet ‘power/knowledge’” (Hall 1994, 394-5) – if that is true, is it ever possible to construct or develop a cultural identity or confront one’s positionality in a way that makes research accountable? How are we to understand and come to terms with identity and position if they are always colored by politics?  

Diaz and Kauanui pose this question, which is useful in the context of their article, of course, but is also applicable to research beyond the subject of the article, and is as a result perhaps beneficial to ponder here – is indigeneity about only space and place? Is it possible to provide a definition for indigeneity that does not essentialize?