Nagar- Kim The

In Muddying the Waters: Coauthoring Feminisms Across Scholarship and Activism, Nagar describes several methodologies that she uses in order to do scholar activist work. In the introduction, she describes the methodology of radical vulnerability, which encourages those involved in scholarship and activism to grapple with the politics of our positions in order to build bridges across boundaries through dialogue where people can share suspicions and interrogate one another. I think it would be interesting to bring Nagar and Audre Simpson’s works in conversation with one another as they seem to have different perspectives regarding this topic, at least initially. Whereas it seems that utilizing Nagar’s radical vulnerability methodology would result in more transparency, Simpson’s refusal methodology would result in certain information being held back to prevent harm to communities. However, the two scholars also ground their arguments in very different contexts. I think that in these cases, it may be helpful to think about these methodologies as tools that we can utilize in our methodology toolbox. What methodologies we decide to use may depend on a number of things. It will also depend on the community’s goals, interests, and values.

In the third chapter, Nagar introduces methodologies of speaking with research subjects and crossing border with situated solidarities (within specific contexts). It seems that she introduces these methodologies in order to critique the shortcomings of positionality and reflexivity. In regards to positionality, she argues for a positionality that moves beyond positioning ourselves in terms of solely identity to positioning ourselves in terms of a more systemic and materialist focus. In regards to reflexivity, she is trying to address that although reflexivity is necessary for understanding how power operates, it can also lead to scholars getting stuck, contributing to a lack of action or giving up the idea of trying to make change out of fear that they cannot ethically step into other worlds. Additionally, it can also lead to competition among scholars as to who is more legitimate based on the identities they may or may not have. She argues using the speaking with methodology, which emphasizes being open to being influenced by others’ political, economic, and cultural contexts and being reflexive about this things. The crossing borders with situated solidarities methodology requires us to be critical about what borders we cross, why (in who’s interest) are we crossing these borders, and reflect on how this contributes to neoliberalism and colonialism. I think that these methodologies would serve as good starting points when it comes to working with communities. However, I also think it is important to note that these methodologies should be tailored accordingly to the communities based on their needs. I think a really common pitfall, especially for scholars is to adhere too rigidly to theory and methodologies when it may not always completely fit the community or the context.

I think that it is important to acknowledge the messiness of this process.

Questions:

1)   How do we practice scholar activism without just placing more power in academia? What are the dangers of doing this? What are some other examples of when this has been done with other communities? What are some things that were learned and what critiques do you have of the experience?

2)   How do her methodologies of talking with and crossing boundaries in regards to positionality interact with other methodologies such as participatory action research (PAR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR)?