Archive for January, 2007
Susan Gannon has an essay on the (Im)possibilities of writing the self locate some of my anxieties of voice subsuming Other locations in my attempts ….
Also useful to what I am thinking through – Melissa Gregg’s work on the “mundane voice” (see her book “Cultural Studies’ Affective Voices”)
terms of cultural studiesâ€™ relationship to globalization, I want the idea of the
mundane to inject some much needed parochialism into academic work. Now,
parochialism has some bad press, especially the kind Morris herself describes as
characterizing conceptual debate. â€˜One consequence of the mundane globaliza-
tion immediately affecting intellectualsâ€™, she writes, is â€˜the indignant parochial-
ism of assuming that you always already
the political import of this or that
product or practiceâ€™ (Morris 1993a, p. 42). I agree with Morris that this kind of
assumed knowledge â€˜will not be very helpful in the futureâ€™ (1993a, p. 42), and
that one of the best ways to counter it is to use the limitations of our situated
speaking positions more productively. It is precisely because we seem destined
to share a theoretical vocabulary internationally (which is not to say globally)
that we need to work harder to explain how particular concepts work in the
contexts from which we write and speak. In an internet-wired, international
conference-attending, US-led publishing network of interaction, pivotal terms
and theories are too often taken for granted in cultural studiesâ€™ everyday. We
need means to habitualize self-reflexivity in our theoretical assumptions and
investigative practices, especially if our goal is to widen the audience for these
concerns in the future.
In autoethnography, the authori ty granted to â€œbei ng thereâ€ i s
condensed i n the sel f of the (sel f )researcher who has (at l ast gi ven hi msel f or
hersel f ) the authori ty to speak. However, the â€œevi dence of experi enceâ€ that the
autoethnographer struggl es to capture i n hi s or her wri ti ng, ri sks overl ooki ng
â€œquesti ons about the constructed nature of experi ence, about how subj ects are
consti tuted . . . about how oneâ€™s vi si on i s structured . . . [through] l anguage (or
di scourse) and hi stor yâ€ (Scott, 1991, p. 777). Much autoethnography i s deepl y
connected to the stori es tol d by the body, parti cul arl y pathol ogi zed bodi es. In
these ci rcumstances, unravel i ng or cri ti qui ng autoethnographi c wri ti ng that
rel i es on the â€œval i di ty of tearsâ€ (Lather, 2000, 2001) and the â€œepi stemol ogy of
emoti onâ€ (Denzi n, 1997) becomes both di ffi cul t (Cl ough, 1997) and neces-
sar y wi thi n a poststructural paradi gm that i s skepti cal of real i st stori es.
organizing footage – or rather just downloading…
found Pu’s footage from 2000-2001
Voice and responsibility
whose voice prevails and when and why?
does “having a voice” ensure accountability – accountability to what who where
ideological location and voice
voices emerge in contexts – contexts exist within hierarchies – individual voice is always negotiated – always accountable…
when do we define it as “voiced” – who is voiced through what voice?
what representational practices shape voice?
Should the subaltern speak? who decides?
community voicings vs individual voice
why is individual voice considered more empowering?
is there a a community “voice” without disappearing the individual – when are they at odds.
why is it an issue?
and so I am back to square one…
when does anyone have “voice”
under what conditions and to what purpose and cause?
thanks to all on CULT stud who replied to my post.
Here’s a link that has some of what I found on google video and youtube. Feel free to join the discussion.
So now with youtube making it easier to tape onsite – more talking heads… more talking heads on video pods, more talking heads on youtube…
lots of fun opportunities for class, I guess.
Anyway – off to move the body at the gym…