I commented on thestrenuousbrief's blog earlier today with my own explanation and paraphrasing of one of our articles, and I'm going to post it here so that if there is anything to be gained from it it will be more public:
Privilidged standpoints looks at epistemology (or, metaepistemology which is different). Similar to the discussion we had about discourse, metaepistemology has to do with looking at the ways we know things, or the ways we construct what we know. Epistemology has to do with (what feminist recoil from) the knower and the production of knowledge, and the author is making a complex argument that says standpoint theory and epistemology are not polar opposites, and that maybe they even inform one another. Standpoint theory teaches us that there is no objective reality, and that we have much to learn from looking at an issues from the social standpoints of many groups (like looking at black feminism, global feminism, and power from the bottom up). Epistemology is about the production of knowledge, and because there isn't ONE knowledge, feminists see this as reductive and verging on essentialism, which is our death wish. The author here is saying that epistemology attempts to be as objective as possible, so as to create 'good' and 'true' knowledge. She argues that using standpoint theory, epistemologists can come up with much more 'good' knowledge than by using a white, upper-middle class standpoint only. The author is suggesting that objectivity should not be a dangerous word for feminists, and social location should not scare off the epistemologists.
I hope this helps, or at least creates conversation if I have completely misrepresented the author.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Challenging, yet Refreshing
Two of this weeks readings are somewhat dangerous, because they discuss biology, essentialism, and philosophy... not subjects that are part of our usual interdisciplinary team. Gut Feminism, by Elizabeth A. Wilson refers to Freud in the first line. The piece discusses bulimia though the lens of Freud's writing, and finishes with a connection to feminism. Wilson explains that Freud conceives of physical hysteria, that is organic, as being different from hysteria that is more cognitive. Wilson writes:
"This model of hysteria, and Freud's emerging preference for psychogenic etiologies over biological ones, has been enormously influential on feminist accounts of embodiment. The idea that psychic or cultural conflicts could become somatic events was one of the central organizing principles of feminist work on the body in the 1980s and 1990s. This model allowed feminists to think of bodily transformation ideationally and symbolically, without reference to biological constraints." 69
Biological determinism as feminism's enemy has been written on by many a feminist scholar, so seeing an argument that suggests Freud's contributions to feminism is shocking albeit interesting. Wilson explains this by saying, "...it seems that the very sophistication of feminist accounts of embodiment has been brokered through a repudiation of biological data. Too often, it is only when anatomy or physiology or biochemistry are removed from the analytic scene (or, in what amounts to much the same gesture, these domains are considered to be too reductive be analytically interesting) that it has been possible to generate a recognizably feminist account of the body." (70)
Much feminist work has been done recently concerning the body. Gut Feminism, 2004, is in the midst of that work. One book comes to mind that I read during undergrad. Sexing the Body, by Anne Fausto-Sterling also discusses biology and its relationship to feminism.
Wilson discusses the mistake of line drawing between physical and mental. "Materializations are not the effect of a leap from the mental to the somatic; rather, they are the product of a regression to a protopsychic state. That is, hysteria materializes the protopsychic (ontogenetic and phylogenetic) inclinations native to the body's substrata." (74)
Later in the article we find a discussion of organic becoming a synonym for biological and from this Wilson argues "...these Boolean demarcations among organs and between psyche and soma are intelligible only within a conventional (flat) biological economy... Perhaps the lability of eating and mood - their tendency to align and dissociate under the influences of certain medications - speaks to an ontological organization that is at odds with organic rationality." (83) The way things have been thought of is not whole. The physical is engaged in a dance with the mental and the emotional, and line-drawing does not reduce the entire equation to biological determinism, just as it does not deny the existence of biology.
Another sticky situation is explained by Kourken Michaelian in Privileged Standpoints/ Reliable Processes, where the author looks at standpoint theory in terms of epistemology (or metaepistemology). I have a deep love of existential philosophy, which means that reading this article was a joy. I have been trying to link my interests, and finding that the bridges between philosophy and women's studies are poorly kept.
Both of the articles mentioned tackle subjects that, if they are seen as the sole lenses through which to view the world, would mean the death of feminism. Again arises the question of what to do about the dead white men. Women's Studies reacts to a framework that has always taught and valued the dead white man, and these articles engage with ideas rather than acting against them. I am extremely interested in existential philosophy and its connection to modern day feminism. Because of this, these articles were challengingly refreshing.
"This model of hysteria, and Freud's emerging preference for psychogenic etiologies over biological ones, has been enormously influential on feminist accounts of embodiment. The idea that psychic or cultural conflicts could become somatic events was one of the central organizing principles of feminist work on the body in the 1980s and 1990s. This model allowed feminists to think of bodily transformation ideationally and symbolically, without reference to biological constraints." 69
Biological determinism as feminism's enemy has been written on by many a feminist scholar, so seeing an argument that suggests Freud's contributions to feminism is shocking albeit interesting. Wilson explains this by saying, "...it seems that the very sophistication of feminist accounts of embodiment has been brokered through a repudiation of biological data. Too often, it is only when anatomy or physiology or biochemistry are removed from the analytic scene (or, in what amounts to much the same gesture, these domains are considered to be too reductive be analytically interesting) that it has been possible to generate a recognizably feminist account of the body." (70)
Much feminist work has been done recently concerning the body. Gut Feminism, 2004, is in the midst of that work. One book comes to mind that I read during undergrad. Sexing the Body, by Anne Fausto-Sterling also discusses biology and its relationship to feminism.
Wilson discusses the mistake of line drawing between physical and mental. "Materializations are not the effect of a leap from the mental to the somatic; rather, they are the product of a regression to a protopsychic state. That is, hysteria materializes the protopsychic (ontogenetic and phylogenetic) inclinations native to the body's substrata." (74)
Later in the article we find a discussion of organic becoming a synonym for biological and from this Wilson argues "...these Boolean demarcations among organs and between psyche and soma are intelligible only within a conventional (flat) biological economy... Perhaps the lability of eating and mood - their tendency to align and dissociate under the influences of certain medications - speaks to an ontological organization that is at odds with organic rationality." (83) The way things have been thought of is not whole. The physical is engaged in a dance with the mental and the emotional, and line-drawing does not reduce the entire equation to biological determinism, just as it does not deny the existence of biology.
Another sticky situation is explained by Kourken Michaelian in Privileged Standpoints/ Reliable Processes, where the author looks at standpoint theory in terms of epistemology (or metaepistemology). I have a deep love of existential philosophy, which means that reading this article was a joy. I have been trying to link my interests, and finding that the bridges between philosophy and women's studies are poorly kept.
Both of the articles mentioned tackle subjects that, if they are seen as the sole lenses through which to view the world, would mean the death of feminism. Again arises the question of what to do about the dead white men. Women's Studies reacts to a framework that has always taught and valued the dead white man, and these articles engage with ideas rather than acting against them. I am extremely interested in existential philosophy and its connection to modern day feminism. Because of this, these articles were challengingly refreshing.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Really?
In my last post I noted that Women, Race &: Class by Angela Davis is a fantastic book. One of the chapters in said book addresses the myth of the black rapist. So today, when I stumbled across this, I couldn't help by blog about it.
The story here is that a frat at Yale went to the first years' dorms and chanted "no means yes, yes means anal." I don't think I'd find that a welcoming speech if I were, say, a first year female student at Yale. Welcome to the Ivy league, ladies. There's also a clip where you can hear the actual chanting.
No means different things for different people?
The story here is that a frat at Yale went to the first years' dorms and chanted "no means yes, yes means anal." I don't think I'd find that a welcoming speech if I were, say, a first year female student at Yale. Welcome to the Ivy league, ladies. There's also a clip where you can hear the actual chanting.
No means different things for different people?
Thank you, Lorde and Davis
That the Mothers May soar and the Daughters May Know Their Names: A Retrospective of Black Feminist Literary Criticism, by Farah Jasmine Griffin, offers an exposition of black feminist literature. Barely two pages into this article I found a striking point:
"Today many shcholars and critics continue to contribute to and expand the field. Nonetheless, black feminist criticism ( as well as women's studies and African American studies) has experienced a backlash from both the left and the right. The overall assault on multiculturalism and political correctness as well as those critiques that fault the field for being a bastion of identity politics and essentialism have targeted black feminist criticism and challenged its adequacy as a mode of critical analysis. Interestingly, it i quite likely that the latter critique of essentialism was made possible by the very terms and successes of black feminist literary critics who were among the first to call attention to the constructed nature of racial and gender identity."
ESSENTIALISM!!!! The feminist recoils at the thought! To somewhat contextualize my reaction to this piece, the reader should know that within the week I have read Sister Outsider, by Audre Lorde, and Women, Race & Class by Angela Davis, both of whom were mentioned on page 485 of the article. The latter book gives a comprehensive history of the Women's rights movement, as well as the history of slavery. Thusly, when I read "...masculinist bias of the civil rights..." and "...black people were gendered male, and women most often meant white women..." (pg 485), I nodded furiously.
Griffin writes "These writers published in genres as diverse as as the novel, drama, poetry and autobiography; in so doing they openly challenged any notion of the black community as a monolith of like ideologies, politics and standpoints," (486). This is a central point, and one reason that black feminism has been and is so crucial to critical thinking. "From the beginning, black feminist have been committed to the freedom of all people, especially black people."
Griffin's conclusion expresses that black feminism has withstood attacks from within and without, and still survived (502).
Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject "Agency" in Feminist Discourse Methodology, by Carol Bacchi, offers a critique of how feminists use and understand the term 'Discourse.' Bacchi writes, "The identification of discourse(s) as institutionally supported and culturally influenced conceptual and interpretive schemas that influence the understanding of an issue, has as its goal interrogating those premises, and showing how they operate to delimit an issue in specific ways. By contrast, the tendency to use the term discourse as shorthand for ways of talking about and issue like prostitution or quotas is ambiguous in its intent," (202).
A dead white man, Jacques Derrida, warned that language has been around for a long time, and has entrenched meanings, and therefore is a loaded gun as a tool for communication. We can not expect to communicate exactly what we mean by speaking. I found this argument useful for understanding this article and the implications for using the term in question.
In Feminist Reverberations, by Joan Wallach Scott I found two one-liners that were especially impactful:
"don't expect lawful behavior from those who are not allowed to make law," (7)
and "When you save someone...you are saving them from something. You are also saving them to something," (9). Both of the quotes are taken from others and used by the author.
"Today many shcholars and critics continue to contribute to and expand the field. Nonetheless, black feminist criticism ( as well as women's studies and African American studies) has experienced a backlash from both the left and the right. The overall assault on multiculturalism and political correctness as well as those critiques that fault the field for being a bastion of identity politics and essentialism have targeted black feminist criticism and challenged its adequacy as a mode of critical analysis. Interestingly, it i quite likely that the latter critique of essentialism was made possible by the very terms and successes of black feminist literary critics who were among the first to call attention to the constructed nature of racial and gender identity."
ESSENTIALISM!!!! The feminist recoils at the thought! To somewhat contextualize my reaction to this piece, the reader should know that within the week I have read Sister Outsider, by Audre Lorde, and Women, Race & Class by Angela Davis, both of whom were mentioned on page 485 of the article. The latter book gives a comprehensive history of the Women's rights movement, as well as the history of slavery. Thusly, when I read "...masculinist bias of the civil rights..." and "...black people were gendered male, and women most often meant white women..." (pg 485), I nodded furiously.
Griffin writes "These writers published in genres as diverse as as the novel, drama, poetry and autobiography; in so doing they openly challenged any notion of the black community as a monolith of like ideologies, politics and standpoints," (486). This is a central point, and one reason that black feminism has been and is so crucial to critical thinking. "From the beginning, black feminist have been committed to the freedom of all people, especially black people."
Griffin's conclusion expresses that black feminism has withstood attacks from within and without, and still survived (502).
Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject "Agency" in Feminist Discourse Methodology, by Carol Bacchi, offers a critique of how feminists use and understand the term 'Discourse.' Bacchi writes, "The identification of discourse(s) as institutionally supported and culturally influenced conceptual and interpretive schemas that influence the understanding of an issue, has as its goal interrogating those premises, and showing how they operate to delimit an issue in specific ways. By contrast, the tendency to use the term discourse as shorthand for ways of talking about and issue like prostitution or quotas is ambiguous in its intent," (202).
A dead white man, Jacques Derrida, warned that language has been around for a long time, and has entrenched meanings, and therefore is a loaded gun as a tool for communication. We can not expect to communicate exactly what we mean by speaking. I found this argument useful for understanding this article and the implications for using the term in question.
In Feminist Reverberations, by Joan Wallach Scott I found two one-liners that were especially impactful:
"don't expect lawful behavior from those who are not allowed to make law," (7)
and "When you save someone...you are saving them from something. You are also saving them to something," (9). Both of the quotes are taken from others and used by the author.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
...And Therefore Revisable
Christine Halse and Anne Honey in Unraveling Ethics: Illuminating the Moral Dilemmas of Research Ethics state "In penning this essay, our aim is to make visible, and therefore revisable, the moral dilemmas embedded in research ethics policy and it's implementation by ethics committees..." (Halse and Honey 2142). Using this framework, the authors discuss the ethical hang-ups they experience at each step of the research process, from getting their work approved by ethics panels, to the consenting of the subjects, and offer critiques for the system at large and themselves as individuals.
Halse and Honey explain that, in order to approach the ethics panel at all, they had to define the group of girls they would be studying, even though they did not feel that there was an easy or useful way to do so. Should they study girls who have been diagnosed as anorexic, even though they don't agree that they have a condition, or should they study a group of girls that self-disclose as anorexic? They write, "To brand a girl anorexic, without consent was to deny her selfhood - one of the very issues the study aimed to address...Further, as researchers familiar with clinical settings, we knew that a medical diagnosis of anorexia nervosa could not create a coherent category of person, " (2146).
While deliberating how to negotiate the title of the target population, the authors were being pressured by funders and colleges to simply pick a title. This, for me, was a very, very important point. We started out this semester talking about quantitative versus qualitative research, and one of the arguments against qualitative had to do with how much time and money was needed to complete it. Resources for research are not always abundant, and the backlash these researchers received because they were not producing results quickly most likely framed what kind of research they produced. They are not the only two who are restricted by time lines and money troubles. This makes me wonder how much ethics is dependent on the climate in which the research is conducted? Does a lack of resources necessitate unethical work? I'm not talking here about work that is reviewed by they ethics panel and given the go ahead. Rather, I mean, do the researchers even have the time and energy to question those panels for being entrenched in the sciences?
I also found the discussion about informed consent compelling and problematic. By the time we read this section, we've just come to the conclusion that ethics panels are not necessarily ethical, and so the reader is all of the sudden struck with the question of whether or not informed consent is a legitimate or useful term, especially when it is restricted by age. What makes a fourteen year old incapable of making her own decisions as opposed to a fifteen or sixteen year old? When we are working with a population that is self-starving, and if they have been labeled medically unsound by professionals, then we have to unpack all of the scientific underpinnings and accusations about the young women. If we see the girls as unable to take care of themselves even physically, how can we assume they know what's best for themselves, and therefore sign an informed consent form? I do NOT mean to suggest that the hard-wiring of the girls in question is somehow inherently flawed and that they are therefore unable to speak for themselves. In fact, I am very very grateful that the authors qualify the term 'normal' when they discuss eating habits, and look at a feminist theory that is critical of the society in which these girls live. Still, the girls who do not self-identify might have different reasons for participating in the research... and all of the girls will have different reasons for participating, whether it be to get the hell out of the facilities they are in, or to piss of their parents, or to have someone listen to them and treat them as human beings. Probably because the institution the research took place in agreed to allow the authors in, we do not see a critical look at what happens to girls that are labeled anorexic within those walls. There has been a great deal of scholarship concerning mental health institutions, and I did not see any of this reflected in the ethical debate.
"Ethics committees grew out of a positivist tradition of biomedical research that evolved in tandem with the theoretical-juridical model of ethics. Positivist research takes for granted the existence of a putative knowable reality, and hat objective, universal truths can be revealed through empirical scientific data collection and explicit, transparent, experimental research operations and procedures .... yet the biomedical model also casts research ethics in a shroud of scientific neutrality..." (2153). The ethics panels are socially situated, as are the researchers, the doctors diagnosing and the reader. Every player here also wants to keep their job. Qualitative research was once seen as experimental, and it was also a thorn in the side of those who did not take it seriously. We should question ethics panels, but does that mean we should dissolve them entirely? Probably not. As women studies teaches us, we have to delve deeper into issues and save the good as well as critique the bad. Questions like these are for figuring out, not giving cause to the idea of slippery slope, where if we can not get exactly what we want to know, we dismiss the issue entirely. The authors want to open up their work for revisions and for others to build off of.. Even if a reader disagrees with the steps they took, it is useful to point out that they are open and willing to be used by the reader.
Halse and Honey explain that, in order to approach the ethics panel at all, they had to define the group of girls they would be studying, even though they did not feel that there was an easy or useful way to do so. Should they study girls who have been diagnosed as anorexic, even though they don't agree that they have a condition, or should they study a group of girls that self-disclose as anorexic? They write, "To brand a girl anorexic, without consent was to deny her selfhood - one of the very issues the study aimed to address...Further, as researchers familiar with clinical settings, we knew that a medical diagnosis of anorexia nervosa could not create a coherent category of person, " (2146).
While deliberating how to negotiate the title of the target population, the authors were being pressured by funders and colleges to simply pick a title. This, for me, was a very, very important point. We started out this semester talking about quantitative versus qualitative research, and one of the arguments against qualitative had to do with how much time and money was needed to complete it. Resources for research are not always abundant, and the backlash these researchers received because they were not producing results quickly most likely framed what kind of research they produced. They are not the only two who are restricted by time lines and money troubles. This makes me wonder how much ethics is dependent on the climate in which the research is conducted? Does a lack of resources necessitate unethical work? I'm not talking here about work that is reviewed by they ethics panel and given the go ahead. Rather, I mean, do the researchers even have the time and energy to question those panels for being entrenched in the sciences?
I also found the discussion about informed consent compelling and problematic. By the time we read this section, we've just come to the conclusion that ethics panels are not necessarily ethical, and so the reader is all of the sudden struck with the question of whether or not informed consent is a legitimate or useful term, especially when it is restricted by age. What makes a fourteen year old incapable of making her own decisions as opposed to a fifteen or sixteen year old? When we are working with a population that is self-starving, and if they have been labeled medically unsound by professionals, then we have to unpack all of the scientific underpinnings and accusations about the young women. If we see the girls as unable to take care of themselves even physically, how can we assume they know what's best for themselves, and therefore sign an informed consent form? I do NOT mean to suggest that the hard-wiring of the girls in question is somehow inherently flawed and that they are therefore unable to speak for themselves. In fact, I am very very grateful that the authors qualify the term 'normal' when they discuss eating habits, and look at a feminist theory that is critical of the society in which these girls live. Still, the girls who do not self-identify might have different reasons for participating in the research... and all of the girls will have different reasons for participating, whether it be to get the hell out of the facilities they are in, or to piss of their parents, or to have someone listen to them and treat them as human beings. Probably because the institution the research took place in agreed to allow the authors in, we do not see a critical look at what happens to girls that are labeled anorexic within those walls. There has been a great deal of scholarship concerning mental health institutions, and I did not see any of this reflected in the ethical debate.
"Ethics committees grew out of a positivist tradition of biomedical research that evolved in tandem with the theoretical-juridical model of ethics. Positivist research takes for granted the existence of a putative knowable reality, and hat objective, universal truths can be revealed through empirical scientific data collection and explicit, transparent, experimental research operations and procedures .... yet the biomedical model also casts research ethics in a shroud of scientific neutrality..." (2153). The ethics panels are socially situated, as are the researchers, the doctors diagnosing and the reader. Every player here also wants to keep their job. Qualitative research was once seen as experimental, and it was also a thorn in the side of those who did not take it seriously. We should question ethics panels, but does that mean we should dissolve them entirely? Probably not. As women studies teaches us, we have to delve deeper into issues and save the good as well as critique the bad. Questions like these are for figuring out, not giving cause to the idea of slippery slope, where if we can not get exactly what we want to know, we dismiss the issue entirely. The authors want to open up their work for revisions and for others to build off of.. Even if a reader disagrees with the steps they took, it is useful to point out that they are open and willing to be used by the reader.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
"No Fat Chicks" and Taking up Space
Feministing.com, a feminist blog, offers me some distraction from the rigidity of graduate reading languages. This past week, I commented on Ole'Lefty's blog about the concept of taking up space. TSB added to the conversation discussing the everyday annoyance of sitting next to men that take up space without considering the people they are next to, on planes or in other public spaces. I contend that American women are coming from a society that disallows them to take up space without repercussion. Women tend more to sit with legs crossed, shoulders slouched, and to speak quietly, only after others have spoken. This is a very polar view, I admit, but I am trying to point something out that seems so commonplace.
So, what takes up more space than being loud, aggressive, or standing up straight? Being a "fat chick" does, especially when the women in question are unapologetic. Feministing.com offers a discussion about this topic here. There are many a bumper sticker and tee shirt touting the line "No Fat Chicks," which makes one wonder what is so threatening about them? Could it be that women who are not easily, literally marginalized because of their size pose more of a threat than small, vulnerable looking women? Is it because they take up more space? Are they less feminine? What allows for verbal and, in many cases, physical and sexual violence to happen to these women with little uproar from society?
Another case of women, taking up space, and not getting praised for doing so.
This is a sign upon entering a nudist beach that I found on a post about fitness here.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Court TV
My sister and I love judge shows. Not only can I multi-task when they are on as background noise, but I never stop being impressed by how many there are, as well as how dramatic. This may seem like a bit of a tangent, as well it is, but it does relate in some way to our reading concepts.
Some judges are black men, some are white women, and some are black women and some are white men (those are the only I've seen so far). These judges are, obviously, in a position of power. They are visibly seated higher than the people they are passing judgment on, they have mallets they can pound to gain attention, and they have the power to kick people out and pass rulings. When I watch these shows I try to pay close attention to how individuals react the the judgments. I have not done quantitative analysis, but I have noticed there is much less backlash from people when they are judged by a man. Also, when judged by judge Judy, men seem to most adverse to the judgment. Very interesting.
Some judges are black men, some are white women, and some are black women and some are white men (those are the only I've seen so far). These judges are, obviously, in a position of power. They are visibly seated higher than the people they are passing judgment on, they have mallets they can pound to gain attention, and they have the power to kick people out and pass rulings. When I watch these shows I try to pay close attention to how individuals react the the judgments. I have not done quantitative analysis, but I have noticed there is much less backlash from people when they are judged by a man. Also, when judged by judge Judy, men seem to most adverse to the judgment. Very interesting.
Symbolic Representations of Power
In the first paragraph of Sabine Grenz's Intersections of Sex and Power in Research on Prostitution: A Female Researcher Interviewing Male Heterosexual Clients, she states "...the only actual power they had was to disguise and the only actual power I had was related to the way I was going to interpret their stories, power relations such as those between men and women and between researchers and participants were present via symbolic representation." Symbolic representation, then, gives a name to the feelings involved in the research. Contradictory feelings of wanting to do research on men as a woman and feeling threatened or unsafe, while also wanting to avoid succumbing to sexism.The idea of symbolic representation can help us make sense of power dynamics that are diluted or that take place outside of rigid institutional frameworks, where one group is obviously in power. Using this idea we can more clearly think about what it means to be, like Grenz, in a position that is simultaneously empowering and disempowering.
Grenz discusses that the role of researcher, especially when conducting interviews, has been/can be labeled as feminine work, because it necessitates good listening and safety building skills that men, in a heteronomative society can not offer (especially to those discussing prostitution). Even though men may feel more comfortable opening up to Grenz, this is perhaps because they do not see her as a threat/take her seriously, or because they do not feel that their power is being undermined by a woman. When grappling with the question of who held the power in conversations, we should discuss that the researcher had concerns about her own safety, whereas the male participants did not.
Grenz states, "I had to take care not to be too friendly and not to have too much rapport, which in other interview settings would be considered a necessary prerequisite for successful research." (2095)
The researcher could not use the technique of sharing personal stories to build trust with the subjects, because to do so might place her in a compromising position, or derail her own feeling of safety. Therefore, the training she has received about how to successfully execute research is turned on its head, especially because she is researching a group to which she does not belong. The author writes, "...while participants were talking and giving information about their sexual identities, I was just listening to them. Many feminist researchers have criticized this methodology because in research on marginalized groups it is a way to establish hierarchy between researchers and researched..." (2096) If she were researching a group she does not identify as a member of, and that group were seen as marginalized, she would have to take care to represent them responsibly and build trust with them, but because Grenz is working with straight, white, men, she is forced to translate her own relationship to them as powerful researcher and woman as a symbol for all other women, including prostitutes.
About halfway through the article, the researcher explains, "I am very skeptical of using the term threatened masculinity, since it gives the impression that masculinity is a stable entity men can rely on, without questioning the existing power relations between men and women." (2097) This statement threw me. Even if masculinity is not universally accessible to all men, at all times as a tool, does it not still function as a framework for situating people? Is it not still a way to see the world that men are deeply entrenched and invested in? If masculinity isn't a stable identity, what is? This definition seems problematic because, though we need to see the participants as individuals before we can assess what is happening in terms of power relations, we need also not ignore the importance of masculinity as a construct for the men or the woman involved. Maybe the participants did have to rethink gender power relations for a little while, but we can not forget that the participation in the research is voluntary, so we are looking at a self selected sample that might have a different view of gendered power relations to begin with, and we also have to keep in mind that one individual male who is in a vulnerable position for an hour does not undo all of masculinity for every male. I am not ready to wash away the entire concept of masculinity that can be threatened.
Homophobia!
I recently read a bumper sticker that said "I don't mind straight people, I just wish they would keep it in their bedrooms."
The article is coming from Germany, where prostitution is not illegal. Grenz suggests that the stories told by her participants are similar to coming out stories. She also explains that it is much more costly for men to come out as gay in this setting, than to admit to engaging in prostitution, because being gay carries with it many more repercussions in that society. Certain sex acts with prostitutes, if found out by the general population, can place a man under a label.
The author suggests that throughout her research she did not necessarily feel empowered, but that she did feel like she was in control. This, as she points to once or twice in her writing, is similar to the experience of some sex workers, who feel that they are in control of their interactions because of the vulnerability of men they encounter. I found that it was interesting that Glenz felt in control of the situation, even though she stated early on in the article that she was uneasy and sometimes feared for her safety when calling back men that applied to the study who were overtly sexual. Constituting her own set of boundaries may have given the researcher more feelings of being in control, while at the same time, not giving her feelings of empowerment.
Did this researcher do her job? Did she write, in detail, every interaction verbal and non? Would a male have done the research more ethically, better, wiser? Is it dependent more on the individual than the group they study? The author suggests in her conclusion that seeing power as a single entity is problematic. "I believe it is necessary to see different strands of power interwoven with one another rather than to theorize power as a unified phenomenon that is owned either by the researcher or the researched." (2111).
Grenz discusses that the role of researcher, especially when conducting interviews, has been/can be labeled as feminine work, because it necessitates good listening and safety building skills that men, in a heteronomative society can not offer (especially to those discussing prostitution). Even though men may feel more comfortable opening up to Grenz, this is perhaps because they do not see her as a threat/take her seriously, or because they do not feel that their power is being undermined by a woman. When grappling with the question of who held the power in conversations, we should discuss that the researcher had concerns about her own safety, whereas the male participants did not.
Grenz states, "I had to take care not to be too friendly and not to have too much rapport, which in other interview settings would be considered a necessary prerequisite for successful research." (2095)
The researcher could not use the technique of sharing personal stories to build trust with the subjects, because to do so might place her in a compromising position, or derail her own feeling of safety. Therefore, the training she has received about how to successfully execute research is turned on its head, especially because she is researching a group to which she does not belong. The author writes, "...while participants were talking and giving information about their sexual identities, I was just listening to them. Many feminist researchers have criticized this methodology because in research on marginalized groups it is a way to establish hierarchy between researchers and researched..." (2096) If she were researching a group she does not identify as a member of, and that group were seen as marginalized, she would have to take care to represent them responsibly and build trust with them, but because Grenz is working with straight, white, men, she is forced to translate her own relationship to them as powerful researcher and woman as a symbol for all other women, including prostitutes.
About halfway through the article, the researcher explains, "I am very skeptical of using the term threatened masculinity, since it gives the impression that masculinity is a stable entity men can rely on, without questioning the existing power relations between men and women." (2097) This statement threw me. Even if masculinity is not universally accessible to all men, at all times as a tool, does it not still function as a framework for situating people? Is it not still a way to see the world that men are deeply entrenched and invested in? If masculinity isn't a stable identity, what is? This definition seems problematic because, though we need to see the participants as individuals before we can assess what is happening in terms of power relations, we need also not ignore the importance of masculinity as a construct for the men or the woman involved. Maybe the participants did have to rethink gender power relations for a little while, but we can not forget that the participation in the research is voluntary, so we are looking at a self selected sample that might have a different view of gendered power relations to begin with, and we also have to keep in mind that one individual male who is in a vulnerable position for an hour does not undo all of masculinity for every male. I am not ready to wash away the entire concept of masculinity that can be threatened.
Homophobia!
I recently read a bumper sticker that said "I don't mind straight people, I just wish they would keep it in their bedrooms."
The article is coming from Germany, where prostitution is not illegal. Grenz suggests that the stories told by her participants are similar to coming out stories. She also explains that it is much more costly for men to come out as gay in this setting, than to admit to engaging in prostitution, because being gay carries with it many more repercussions in that society. Certain sex acts with prostitutes, if found out by the general population, can place a man under a label.
The author suggests that throughout her research she did not necessarily feel empowered, but that she did feel like she was in control. This, as she points to once or twice in her writing, is similar to the experience of some sex workers, who feel that they are in control of their interactions because of the vulnerability of men they encounter. I found that it was interesting that Glenz felt in control of the situation, even though she stated early on in the article that she was uneasy and sometimes feared for her safety when calling back men that applied to the study who were overtly sexual. Constituting her own set of boundaries may have given the researcher more feelings of being in control, while at the same time, not giving her feelings of empowerment.
Did this researcher do her job? Did she write, in detail, every interaction verbal and non? Would a male have done the research more ethically, better, wiser? Is it dependent more on the individual than the group they study? The author suggests in her conclusion that seeing power as a single entity is problematic. "I believe it is necessary to see different strands of power interwoven with one another rather than to theorize power as a unified phenomenon that is owned either by the researcher or the researched." (2111).
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fallacies in Critical Thinking
I have done a good deal of talking about critical thinking in class. Here is the list I promised! Critical Thinking has to do with premises and conclusions. The fallacies presented below show issues in reasoning, in which arguments are stated, but their conclusions do not logically follow. These are solid, working definitions of intellectually sticky situations. The list has been very helpful to me.
Fallacies:
Vagueness- just plain old not specific enough
Ambiguity- when something can have more than one meaning
Semantic ambiguity- having to do with words
Syntactic ambiguity- having to do with structure
Ex. The girl was on the chair wearing the bikini
Grouping ambiguity- when you can’t tell if something is referring to a group or an individual
Ex. Secretaries make more money than physicians do.
Fallacy of division - cops are good guys, therefore greg’s a good guy
Fallacy of composition- elise can’t drive, therefore women can’t drive
Euphemism- making something sound better than it is
Ex. saying someone dropped the ball rather than burned down the house
Dysphemism- making something sound worse than it is
Ex. Calling someone a know-it-all rather than a good student
Rhetorical definitions- use emotively charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something
Rhetorical explanations- Not really an explanation. these are similar to rhetorical defs.
Ex. He didn’t win the lottery because he’s an asshole
Stereotype- thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence
Ex. Blondes are dumb.
Innuendo- significant mention, inferring, emotionally inflammatory suggestions
Loaded questions- questions that you can’t answer objectively
Ex. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Weaselers: Weasling your way our of giving proof for something:
"it has not been 100% scientifically proven that, perhaps, possibly, maybe"
Downplaying- adding "merely", "only," "just" to undermine something or someone
Horselaugh/ridicule/sarcasm - not dealing with an issue, but making fun of it instead
Hyperbole- gross over exaggeration
Proof surrogates- statements pretending to have authority without actually having any.
Ex. “research has shown that…”
Rhetorical analogy- a comparison of two things or a likening of one thing to another in order to make one of them appear better or worse.
Ex. Social security is a ponzi scheme
Argument from outrage- getting people pissed off about something rather than dealing with the issue.
Scapegoat- blaming one person or group for everything, even though they are partially or not at all responsible. The kkk is an example
Scare tactics- insurance companies use these. They make you believe that if you don’t conclude the same thing as them, you’ll die
Argument by force- use of threats
ex. Blackmailing
Argument from pitty- hiring someone because you feel sorry for them
Apple polishing- using flattery to get people to join you in your conclusion
Guilt tripping- making someone feel bad instead of reasoning.
Ex. If you don’t do this then it’ll be your fault that granny dies
Wishful thinking- hopping instead of reasoning
Ex. I hope my car doesn’t explode
Peer pressure argument- why don’t you drink- group think fallacy
Nationalism
Rationalizing- using a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests
Argument from popularity- believing something because some or most people do
Argument from common practice- ex. I shouldn’t get a ticket because everyone else speeds too
Argument from tradition- that’s how it’s always been done
Subjectivist fallacy- the idea that something is true just because I think it is
Relativist fallacy- I don’t believe in immolation but it’s ok for other people to because they aren’t me.
Two wrongs make a right
Red herring/smoke screen
Ad hominem attack-using the qualities of a person rather than the qualities of their arguments
personal attack ad hominem
Inconsistency ad hominem- more often self contradiction
Circumstantial ad hominem- he doesn’t like sex, he’s a priest
Genetic fallacy- blanket category when we refute a claim on the basis of it’s origin or its history
Straw man- not representing your opponents argument correctly, so you can knock it down
False dilemma- having to choose between options that are given, when things are being left out
Perfectionist fallacy- has to do with a plan or policy, if the policy will not meet the goals as well as we’d like them me then we should reject it entirely.
Line-drawing fallacy- the fallacy of insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a precise line be drawn
Slippery slope- when the person states that such and such a thing will lead to this… if we stop eating meat the cows will take over
Misplacing the burden of proof-self explanatory
Appeal to ignorance- saying no one knows if there’s a god, so my claim is as good as anyone else’s
Begging the question- structural, has to do with with premises and conclusion, circular reasoning - restating without support or if the premise = the conclusion
Suppression of evidence
Self contradiction- have to verbatim say something and then say its contrary to self-contradict.
Equivocation- using a word in two ways
Apeal to authority- using stars rather than professionals to sell products
Guilt by association- the university of cal once employed the unibomer- vis a vis they are evil argument
Missing the point- non sequitur - has to do with structural, the conclusion does not follow from the premises
Evading the issue- politicians do that, they answer a question with something that has nothing to do with it.
Suppression of evidence- some piece of evidence that would alter the import of the argument is left out or ignored.
All of these definitions come from my class (professor's notes and lecture), myself and the text, Critical Thinking, 9th Edition by Moore and Parker.
Fallacies:
Vagueness- just plain old not specific enough
Ambiguity- when something can have more than one meaning
Semantic ambiguity- having to do with words
Syntactic ambiguity- having to do with structure
Ex. The girl was on the chair wearing the bikini
Grouping ambiguity- when you can’t tell if something is referring to a group or an individual
Ex. Secretaries make more money than physicians do.
Fallacy of division - cops are good guys, therefore greg’s a good guy
Fallacy of composition- elise can’t drive, therefore women can’t drive
Euphemism- making something sound better than it is
Ex. saying someone dropped the ball rather than burned down the house
Dysphemism- making something sound worse than it is
Ex. Calling someone a know-it-all rather than a good student
Rhetorical definitions- use emotively charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something
Rhetorical explanations- Not really an explanation. these are similar to rhetorical defs.
Ex. He didn’t win the lottery because he’s an asshole
Stereotype- thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence
Ex. Blondes are dumb.
Innuendo- significant mention, inferring, emotionally inflammatory suggestions
Loaded questions- questions that you can’t answer objectively
Ex. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Weaselers: Weasling your way our of giving proof for something:
"it has not been 100% scientifically proven that, perhaps, possibly, maybe"
Downplaying- adding "merely", "only," "just" to undermine something or someone
Horselaugh/ridicule/sarcasm - not dealing with an issue, but making fun of it instead
Hyperbole- gross over exaggeration
Proof surrogates- statements pretending to have authority without actually having any.
Ex. “research has shown that…”
Rhetorical analogy- a comparison of two things or a likening of one thing to another in order to make one of them appear better or worse.
Ex. Social security is a ponzi scheme
Argument from outrage- getting people pissed off about something rather than dealing with the issue.
Scapegoat- blaming one person or group for everything, even though they are partially or not at all responsible. The kkk is an example
Scare tactics- insurance companies use these. They make you believe that if you don’t conclude the same thing as them, you’ll die
Argument by force- use of threats
ex. Blackmailing
Argument from pitty- hiring someone because you feel sorry for them
Apple polishing- using flattery to get people to join you in your conclusion
Guilt tripping- making someone feel bad instead of reasoning.
Ex. If you don’t do this then it’ll be your fault that granny dies
Wishful thinking- hopping instead of reasoning
Ex. I hope my car doesn’t explode
Peer pressure argument- why don’t you drink- group think fallacy
Nationalism
Rationalizing- using a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests
Argument from popularity- believing something because some or most people do
Argument from common practice- ex. I shouldn’t get a ticket because everyone else speeds too
Argument from tradition- that’s how it’s always been done
Subjectivist fallacy- the idea that something is true just because I think it is
Relativist fallacy- I don’t believe in immolation but it’s ok for other people to because they aren’t me.
Two wrongs make a right
Red herring/smoke screen
Ad hominem attack-using the qualities of a person rather than the qualities of their arguments
personal attack ad hominem
Inconsistency ad hominem- more often self contradiction
Circumstantial ad hominem- he doesn’t like sex, he’s a priest
Genetic fallacy- blanket category when we refute a claim on the basis of it’s origin or its history
Straw man- not representing your opponents argument correctly, so you can knock it down
False dilemma- having to choose between options that are given, when things are being left out
Perfectionist fallacy- has to do with a plan or policy, if the policy will not meet the goals as well as we’d like them me then we should reject it entirely.
Line-drawing fallacy- the fallacy of insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a precise line be drawn
Slippery slope- when the person states that such and such a thing will lead to this… if we stop eating meat the cows will take over
Misplacing the burden of proof-self explanatory
Appeal to ignorance- saying no one knows if there’s a god, so my claim is as good as anyone else’s
Begging the question- structural, has to do with with premises and conclusion, circular reasoning - restating without support or if the premise = the conclusion
Suppression of evidence
Self contradiction- have to verbatim say something and then say its contrary to self-contradict.
Equivocation- using a word in two ways
Apeal to authority- using stars rather than professionals to sell products
Guilt by association- the university of cal once employed the unibomer- vis a vis they are evil argument
Missing the point- non sequitur - has to do with structural, the conclusion does not follow from the premises
Evading the issue- politicians do that, they answer a question with something that has nothing to do with it.
Suppression of evidence- some piece of evidence that would alter the import of the argument is left out or ignored.
All of these definitions come from my class (professor's notes and lecture), myself and the text, Critical Thinking, 9th Edition by Moore and Parker.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
social sciences systematically stabaliznig social constructs?
In New Feminist Approaches to Social Science Methodologies: An Introduction, Sandra Harding and Kathryn Norberg, the authors write "Researchers, like the societies in which they live, cannot detect - much less correct - the assumptions and practices that shape the interests, conceptual frameworks, and research norms of social science." (Signs, 2005 pg 2010). They explain in their introduction that social research and the social sciences play an integral role in the shaping of group identity, and that this problematic assigning of people to groups enables institutions that are governed by elites to manage the said groups. Thus the interests of those already in power are held constant, while the groups that originally had less power are marginalized further (pg 2009).
And so women's studies students are faced with another challenge: how do we do research without compromising our integrity? The article in question suggests that "...research that holds itself ethically and politically accountable for its social consequences - can in many instances produce knowledge." (pg 2010) Is our goal then to produce knowledge and social change rather than think about knowledge that is already established, whether that be local knowledge or mainstream? I can not help but notice how easily this discussion flows from the conversations we have had as a class and the readings previously assigned (well done, Professor).
If this is becoming a matter of retaining our integrity as feminists and feminist researchers, then we necessarily have a commitment to ourselves and to our field to be essentially political individuals. Allow me to elaborate, as I have been attempting to articulate these thoughts for a while now: Women's studies students are in a unique situation. As a pre-teen in high school, I got involved in some leadership positions. After a while of being involved in a co-counseling, peer-mediation group that met during and after school, I became the leader of a monthly woman's group. This group met at the same time as a men's group for an hour and a half, after which time the groups would combine and discuss highlights of their own meetings. The members of the women's group were young women ages 14-18, in the high school. Meetings would be set up in a certain format. First we would play a game, then I would discuss a topic for conversation, then we would break into groups of two. During this time one person would talk for about 5 minutes about what the discussion made them think about, or if they were having a bad day they would speak about whatever was on their mind, while their partner listened attentively. When one individual's time was up, we'd switch role of talker/listener or counselor/client. These ten minute sessions were deemed mini-sessions. We would come back to the group, and I would do a demo, or demonstrative session, where one 'client' talked about the subject in front of the entire group. The woman's group met once a week during school in addition to the once a month meeting during the evening.
One of the most interesting things I encountered, and discussed in the group was the tendency of young women to say "I don't know." When asked a question, women I was counseling would frequently say "I don't know, but I guess I think ..." and then finish their though eloquently. It isn't that these young women weren't voluble individuals, they absolutely were, but it seemed like by saying "I don't know," before stating something that was important to them, or something that was radical they shirked responsibility for their statements. Thoughts like "it's unfair that women have to spend so much time worrying about appearance" would come out in group, but by saying "I don't know, but I think it's not fair that girls have to think about what they weigh all the time," would make the statement more relativistic. Once I realized how often the phrase was uttered, I would not let it go. Especially when the young women were asked what they thought. Frustrated because of the use of the phrase by these young women as well as myself, I developed my own phrase in response: "You DO know. You're the only one that knows what you think."
When I graduated from my high school, I heard "I don't know" less frequently, though I'm not sure it have entirely dissipated. I hear it now more in terms of "Well, I don't know, where do you want to go to dinner?" The point of this anecdote is that we are not coming from a society where young women are taught to feel that they can/should articulate their own wants and needs. Whether this is because they lack a context in which what they want is deemed important, or if they are given such a rigid framework of gender construction that they do not see themselves as autonomous thinkers, I'm not sure (but it's probably a mix thereof). We're not necessarily coming from a place where our thoughts are valued, so it is imperative that we develop an autonomous set of beliefs as individuals. Our politics don't have to be perfect or pure, but if we have never taken a step back to ask "What do I want?" then we will not be prepared to defend our beliefs or sharpen our critical thinking skills. We can not live our lives with integrity and simultaneously please everyone around us, or avoid confrontation.
This is what I have been trying to say in class:
Because we are women's studies majors, we have our discipline and our work questioned internally and externally. If we do not develop individual beliefs and a language to discuss and defend those beliefs, then we are not equipped to have the kinds of conversations that we have in this class, like how do we do responsible research. Like Shahnaz Khan states in Reconfiguring the Native Informant: Positionality in the Global Age, "I too contribute to a voyeurism legitimized by social science." (2023) She realizes and discusses what it means to be socially situated, but she is not disabled by the fact that she is subjective. She can grapple with the intricacies of power relations, and research anyway. We need to research/think/write/discuss anyway.
And so women's studies students are faced with another challenge: how do we do research without compromising our integrity? The article in question suggests that "...research that holds itself ethically and politically accountable for its social consequences - can in many instances produce knowledge." (pg 2010) Is our goal then to produce knowledge and social change rather than think about knowledge that is already established, whether that be local knowledge or mainstream? I can not help but notice how easily this discussion flows from the conversations we have had as a class and the readings previously assigned (well done, Professor).
If this is becoming a matter of retaining our integrity as feminists and feminist researchers, then we necessarily have a commitment to ourselves and to our field to be essentially political individuals. Allow me to elaborate, as I have been attempting to articulate these thoughts for a while now: Women's studies students are in a unique situation. As a pre-teen in high school, I got involved in some leadership positions. After a while of being involved in a co-counseling, peer-mediation group that met during and after school, I became the leader of a monthly woman's group. This group met at the same time as a men's group for an hour and a half, after which time the groups would combine and discuss highlights of their own meetings. The members of the women's group were young women ages 14-18, in the high school. Meetings would be set up in a certain format. First we would play a game, then I would discuss a topic for conversation, then we would break into groups of two. During this time one person would talk for about 5 minutes about what the discussion made them think about, or if they were having a bad day they would speak about whatever was on their mind, while their partner listened attentively. When one individual's time was up, we'd switch role of talker/listener or counselor/client. These ten minute sessions were deemed mini-sessions. We would come back to the group, and I would do a demo, or demonstrative session, where one 'client' talked about the subject in front of the entire group. The woman's group met once a week during school in addition to the once a month meeting during the evening.
One of the most interesting things I encountered, and discussed in the group was the tendency of young women to say "I don't know." When asked a question, women I was counseling would frequently say "I don't know, but I guess I think ..." and then finish their though eloquently. It isn't that these young women weren't voluble individuals, they absolutely were, but it seemed like by saying "I don't know," before stating something that was important to them, or something that was radical they shirked responsibility for their statements. Thoughts like "it's unfair that women have to spend so much time worrying about appearance" would come out in group, but by saying "I don't know, but I think it's not fair that girls have to think about what they weigh all the time," would make the statement more relativistic. Once I realized how often the phrase was uttered, I would not let it go. Especially when the young women were asked what they thought. Frustrated because of the use of the phrase by these young women as well as myself, I developed my own phrase in response: "You DO know. You're the only one that knows what you think."
When I graduated from my high school, I heard "I don't know" less frequently, though I'm not sure it have entirely dissipated. I hear it now more in terms of "Well, I don't know, where do you want to go to dinner?" The point of this anecdote is that we are not coming from a society where young women are taught to feel that they can/should articulate their own wants and needs. Whether this is because they lack a context in which what they want is deemed important, or if they are given such a rigid framework of gender construction that they do not see themselves as autonomous thinkers, I'm not sure (but it's probably a mix thereof). We're not necessarily coming from a place where our thoughts are valued, so it is imperative that we develop an autonomous set of beliefs as individuals. Our politics don't have to be perfect or pure, but if we have never taken a step back to ask "What do I want?" then we will not be prepared to defend our beliefs or sharpen our critical thinking skills. We can not live our lives with integrity and simultaneously please everyone around us, or avoid confrontation.
This is what I have been trying to say in class:
Because we are women's studies majors, we have our discipline and our work questioned internally and externally. If we do not develop individual beliefs and a language to discuss and defend those beliefs, then we are not equipped to have the kinds of conversations that we have in this class, like how do we do responsible research. Like Shahnaz Khan states in Reconfiguring the Native Informant: Positionality in the Global Age, "I too contribute to a voyeurism legitimized by social science." (2023) She realizes and discusses what it means to be socially situated, but she is not disabled by the fact that she is subjective. She can grapple with the intricacies of power relations, and research anyway. We need to research/think/write/discuss anyway.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
What is Experience and How do we Do Gender?
Joan W. Scott writes about experience, citing a passage concerning homosexual men. Before I write further, I need to point out that, in the beginning section of the paper she thanks Judith Butler for her contributions to refining the work. I had a very acute attack of oh-my-god-I-love-Judith-Butler when reading that. I'm sure writing that is inappropriate for a professional in training, but since the operative word is 'training' I ask you to bear with my over-zealous love of Butler.
On page 776 of the article, Scott writes "Seeing is the origin of knowing. Writing is reproductions, transmission - the communication of knowledge gained through (visual, visceral) experience." On the next page Scott also explains that there is possibly no 'truer' account of reality than first hand experience. The article raises the questions: Who do we see, who has been left out of history? Scott suggests a refusal of essentialism, which is quintessentially feminst. We don't get along well with fundamentalism, biological determinism or essentialism. Could this be why we are so "allergic to religion?"
Doing Gender:
Linda McDowell, in her article Doing Gender: Feminism, Feminists and Research Methods in Human Geography discusses what young people attempting to get into the field of Human Geography in Britain might face if they intend to work with feminist issues.
McDowell explains that there is a moment that these students realize how half of the population has been left out of history, and how this can be a moment of empowerment for them. She writes, "But this moment of empowerment is also paradoxically for many students a moment of doubt when the enormity of the feminist critique of masculinist knowledge becomes clear," (401). In her section of Feminist Methods, the author come to the conclusion that although there may not be a regimented schema for doing feminist research, there is an agreement that collaborative methods are best.(405) She grapples with 'difficult questions' concerning these research methodologies and states "It is, however, becoming increasingly clear that the notion of non-exploitative research relations is a utopian ideal that is receding from our grasp." (408) Hopefully, we will discuss this next class, as it is certainly profound.
Most interesting of all is, before she reaches the aforementioned conclusion, she asks if it's ever alright to use feminine wiles while conducting research. This reminds me of another post I wrote about not calling me baby. So, if a man you are studying as a subject calls you honey or baby, or speaks to you in a condescending way, do you try to coax information out of him by allowing that power relation to form, or do you grapple with the power dynamics and risk forming a functional, albeit sexist relationship? He exploits you now, but, since you ultimately have the power to represent him in your findings, you exploit him later?
On page 776 of the article, Scott writes "Seeing is the origin of knowing. Writing is reproductions, transmission - the communication of knowledge gained through (visual, visceral) experience." On the next page Scott also explains that there is possibly no 'truer' account of reality than first hand experience. The article raises the questions: Who do we see, who has been left out of history? Scott suggests a refusal of essentialism, which is quintessentially feminst. We don't get along well with fundamentalism, biological determinism or essentialism. Could this be why we are so "allergic to religion?"
Doing Gender:
Linda McDowell, in her article Doing Gender: Feminism, Feminists and Research Methods in Human Geography discusses what young people attempting to get into the field of Human Geography in Britain might face if they intend to work with feminist issues.
McDowell explains that there is a moment that these students realize how half of the population has been left out of history, and how this can be a moment of empowerment for them. She writes, "But this moment of empowerment is also paradoxically for many students a moment of doubt when the enormity of the feminist critique of masculinist knowledge becomes clear," (401). In her section of Feminist Methods, the author come to the conclusion that although there may not be a regimented schema for doing feminist research, there is an agreement that collaborative methods are best.(405) She grapples with 'difficult questions' concerning these research methodologies and states "It is, however, becoming increasingly clear that the notion of non-exploitative research relations is a utopian ideal that is receding from our grasp." (408) Hopefully, we will discuss this next class, as it is certainly profound.
Most interesting of all is, before she reaches the aforementioned conclusion, she asks if it's ever alright to use feminine wiles while conducting research. This reminds me of another post I wrote about not calling me baby. So, if a man you are studying as a subject calls you honey or baby, or speaks to you in a condescending way, do you try to coax information out of him by allowing that power relation to form, or do you grapple with the power dynamics and risk forming a functional, albeit sexist relationship? He exploits you now, but, since you ultimately have the power to represent him in your findings, you exploit him later?
I Do Like Bikes and Camping
There is a popular book that is available in about every bookstore in the malls in Albany currently, and it is called Stuff White People Like: A Definitive Guide to the Unique Tastes of Millions and it is written by Christian Lander. Numbers one and two, respectively are "coffee," and "religions their parents don't belong to." As we discussed in the previous class, it can be easy to forget about blinder we might have on in reference to our privileged position. I am white, and it is both embarrassing and hilarious to look at white USers as a category in this light. Thinking about white privilege is not always and easy thing to do, as the cultural imperialism in this location and temporal context has constructed whites as the norm and everyone else as deviant. Peggy McIntosh offers some perspective on the issue, pointing to 50 ways whites are privileged in the United States currently. A copy of this article can be found here.
Faranak Miraftab explains what she encountered when she went to study in Mexico, that women, who had their own stereotypical notions of what it meant to be and Iranian woman, asked her if she could belly dance (599). My significant other was a Peace Corps volunteer in Benin. Recently, I met a family from Benin who he has been in contact with. Said family consists of two young girls (6 and 8 years old), two high-school aged boys and a mother and father. The girls, because they are the youngest, have the best English-speaking skills, so during our visit I spent most of my time chatting with them. The questions they asked me could have come directly out of the first book I mention, and while I was amused at what they think white people are like, it markedly reminds me of Miraftab's article. As we discussed in class, it is dangerous to assume how complex interactions of individuals will form or play out based solely on their global location.
photo taken from:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jerkmag.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/stuffwhitepeoplelike.jpg&imgrefurl=http://jerkmag.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/stuff-white-people-like-a-jerky-sunday/&usg=__jzvt2TlW_Quu9E-CfECX4Oq8vc0=&h=861&w=570&sz=63&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=_S3BP0uXXkUowM:&tbnh=171&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstuff%2Bwhite%2Bpeople%2Blike%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1126%26bih%3D502%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=258&vpy=91&dur=364&hovh=276&hovw=183&tx=101&ty=143&ei=RHOSTMCvGYT58AbJnZivBQ&oei=RHOSTMCvGYT58AbJnZivBQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0
on 9/16/2010
Don't Call Me Baby
The title of this post is not directly, but at least tangentially related to the subject matter.
When I do schoolwork outside of a library setting in a public place, there's usually some form of radio on that I do not want to listen to, so I tune myself into Pandora.com and listen to trance/techno music (that way I don't have to listen to lyrics most of the time, and I don't have to get distracted by hearing songs I already know the lyrics to). Before I started to write today, I looked at our classes general blog and read the post by Professor Ng. Part of that post deals with the critical thinking, and that sparked an urge in me to write, so without further confusing ado, here are some thoughts:
In undergrad I thought for a while I might want to be a lawyer, so I got my LSAT prep book out and took a class entitled 'Critical Thinking.' Throughout the class we learned technique after technique used to make people look bad in debates or confuse their arguments. I still have the laundry list of terms. I was very engaged in the subject material because it shed some light on the ways my arguments as a feminist had been ignored/not taken seriously by people I had debated with. Out of nowhere I learned how to sharpen my skills and to thinking carefully about how I spoke and what battles to pick and leave alone. I did very well in the class, and was asked to lead the review session for it, and even though I didn't go to law school, I did learn a great deal about the power of speech.
Being careful about who we talk to in what ways, and what words we use is thinking critically. The title of the post is the title of a song by Madison Avenue, but it also is a way that some (usually older) men have tried to shut me up when we engage in conversation. By using terms of endearment to refer to someone, you may not be being nice, but actually attempting to assert power over them, and this may not be at all accidental.
When I do schoolwork outside of a library setting in a public place, there's usually some form of radio on that I do not want to listen to, so I tune myself into Pandora.com and listen to trance/techno music (that way I don't have to listen to lyrics most of the time, and I don't have to get distracted by hearing songs I already know the lyrics to). Before I started to write today, I looked at our classes general blog and read the post by Professor Ng. Part of that post deals with the critical thinking, and that sparked an urge in me to write, so without further confusing ado, here are some thoughts:
In undergrad I thought for a while I might want to be a lawyer, so I got my LSAT prep book out and took a class entitled 'Critical Thinking.' Throughout the class we learned technique after technique used to make people look bad in debates or confuse their arguments. I still have the laundry list of terms. I was very engaged in the subject material because it shed some light on the ways my arguments as a feminist had been ignored/not taken seriously by people I had debated with. Out of nowhere I learned how to sharpen my skills and to thinking carefully about how I spoke and what battles to pick and leave alone. I did very well in the class, and was asked to lead the review session for it, and even though I didn't go to law school, I did learn a great deal about the power of speech.
Being careful about who we talk to in what ways, and what words we use is thinking critically. The title of the post is the title of a song by Madison Avenue, but it also is a way that some (usually older) men have tried to shut me up when we engage in conversation. By using terms of endearment to refer to someone, you may not be being nice, but actually attempting to assert power over them, and this may not be at all accidental.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Two biological Mothers?
The Journal of Marriage and Family from June of 2010 contains an article that I (and some other students in the class) were required to read for another class. The article is titled Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Families, by Timothy J. Biblarz and Evren Savci, and is a decade review on the research done about the aforementioned. On page 483, under the heading of "Negotiating identities and social positions" there is a discussion about Lesbian mothers, and a comment that biological mothers have a status that is more valued by the child.
This reminded me of an article I read a while back about stem cell research:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1909164,00.html
The article talks about the possibility of creating sperm from embryonic stem cells.
I found this to be interesting, just in terms of the biological argument, wondering what it might be like in these situations if both mothers were biological.
This reminded me of an article I read a while back about stem cell research:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1909164,00.html
The article talks about the possibility of creating sperm from embryonic stem cells.
I found this to be interesting, just in terms of the biological argument, wondering what it might be like in these situations if both mothers were biological.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
On Western Bloggs: In reaction to our first reading this week
Earlier this morning I read Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses, by Chandra Talpade Mohanty. When I start an article I prepare myself by getting a cup of tea, my tri-color hi-liter, and my multicolored post-it notes, so that I can mark and color ideas or quotes that I think are the author's main points. I also color things that spark ideas for myself, that I intend to blog about later, and, with a different color, I underscore interesting facts or anecdotes. The first seven pages of my version of this article are at least half technicolor. Rather than using this post as an attempt at a summary or outline, I'm going to write about the things in the article I felt compelled to label with stars and explanation points. Though I will write chronologically, please excuse my lack of smooth transitions and my propensity to write more about some points and less about others.
Methodology
"...my argument holds for any discourse that sets up its own authorial subjects as the implicit referent, i.e., the yardstick by which to encode and present cultural Others." (336)
This strikes me as bearing similarities to question-begging. By already qualifying our questions, we set the stage and create the answers we want. If we ask "Are oppressed women oppressed?" then we necessarily have our own answer. The conceptions we have about the subjects we are asking about shape the questions themselves. On page 24 of Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto- Sterling there is an illustration of a Mobius strip. She writes "The Mobius strip is a topological puzzle.... a flat ribbon twisted once and then attached end to end to form a circular twisted surface."
This is the Image used in the book (but also taken from http://scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/math/mobius.html)
One can see how this can be a useful illustration for the formation of the question about Women (versus woman) being asked. Conceptualizing of Third World Women as one particular type of woman, and ignoring specific cultures, histories, caste statuses, and socioeconomic classes is not an accurate portrayal; it has far-reaching implications, the least of which is an inability to recognize difference and intersectionality from a discipline that purports to hold these concepts dear.
Oppression as an identifying factor:
"By women as a category of analysis, I am referring to the critical assumption that all of us of the same gender, across classes and cultures, are somehow socially constituted as a homogeneous group identified prior to the process of analysis." "... in any given piece of feminist analysis, women are characterized as a singular group on the basis of a shared oppression." (337)
Irish Marion Young, in the 2nd chapter of Justice and the Politics of Difference discusses the "Five Faces of Oppression." She discusses group formation and the fact that oppression can not act as an overgeneralizing adjective in the discussion of group formation. Young writes, "...groups are not oppressed to the same extent or in the same ways. In the most general sense, all oppressed people suffer some inhibition of their ability to develop and exercise their capacities and express their needs, thoughts, and feelings." (Young, 40) The inability to use oppression as a blanket term falls in line with our original author's idea that considering 'Women' to be a group that is inherently oppressed is too limiting a description, and robs the individual 'Woman' or any agency (that the Western Woman is assumed to have).
Always-already constituted group:
"Thus, the discursively consensual homogeneity of 'women' as a group is mistaken for the historically specific material reality of groups of women. This results in an assumption of women as an always-already constituted group, one which has been labeled 'powerless,' 'exploited,' 'sexually harassed,' etc., by feminist scientific, economic, legal and sociological discourses." (338)
The negative qualities associated with women as a group are articulately listed, and call to mind the many ways in which women are blocked from resources or paths to agency as told by Marlyn Frye. In The Politics of Reality, Frye discusses oppression ( this essay can be found here ).She uses the mental image of a bird cage, where each way a woman turns she is blocked by a single wire, which should be easy enough to just fly around, but when the wires are arranged in a way to create a cage, the woman is blocked. The Mohanty article seems to suggest that Third World women do not share the same cage, but have different ones that are contingent upon their specific lives.
P.E.T.A. People:
"What is it about cultural Others that make it so easy to analytically formulate them into homogeneous groupings with little regard for historical specificites?" (340)
This just makes me think that the western women in question are just projecting their own insecurities about being pigeonholed into shallow gender roles. Are they treating Third world women like they treat bunnies that perfume is tested on them? Do they feel bad for these individuals while also infantilizing the idea of them? This argument is tangential and just a string of thought from my personal self, and should not be taken terribly seriously.
The Mobius Strip revisited:
The problem with this analytic strategy is that it assumes men and women are already constituted as sexual-political subjects prior to their entry into the arena of social relations." (340)
This needs very little explanation except to say that the mobius strips acts as a useful visual aid for understanding.
Western Eyes Revisited:
I am confused about the one-third and two-thirds world terminology. I am not so confused about what its literal meaning is, but more that it is posed in the revision as being new age jargon, and I've never heard of it before.
Page 509 lists changes that have occurred between the publication of the first and second article (16 years). These are jarring to say the least because, being 22 years old, I have not seen the changes happen, and assume that life now is as it has always been.
"The rise of religious fundamentalisms with their deeply masculinist and often racist rhetoric poses a huge challenge for feminist struggles around the world. Finally, the profoundly unequal "informational highway" as well as the increasing militarization (and masculinization) of the globe, accompanied by the growth of the prison industrial complex in the United States, pose profound contradictions in the lives of communities of women and men in the most parts of the world." (508)
Well, that's terrifying in a way that I was not prepared for.
I was also struck by the conversation in the article about reading up the ladder, which reminded me of an anecdote that I learned in high-school: The Elephant and the Mouse, where the mouse is an 'oppressed' group and the Elephant is the group with power. The Mouse has to know everything about itself AND the elephant, because if it does not know the Elephant's habits and whereabouts at all times, it risks being stepped on. The Elephant needs to know very little about the mouse, but when it sees the mouse it freaks out from fear.
Other stomach turning plot lines from the article:
The discussion on globalization and how it hurts women.
Global Identities:
"Most of the identities we can recognize have emerged during the era of modernity encompassing the rise of capitalism and the nation-state in the context of imperialism." (672)
I didn't find this article to be sprinkled with insightful tid-bits like the first two, but rather that it gave a comprehensive explanation of a history.
Methodology
"...my argument holds for any discourse that sets up its own authorial subjects as the implicit referent, i.e., the yardstick by which to encode and present cultural Others." (336)
This strikes me as bearing similarities to question-begging. By already qualifying our questions, we set the stage and create the answers we want. If we ask "Are oppressed women oppressed?" then we necessarily have our own answer. The conceptions we have about the subjects we are asking about shape the questions themselves. On page 24 of Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto- Sterling there is an illustration of a Mobius strip. She writes "The Mobius strip is a topological puzzle.... a flat ribbon twisted once and then attached end to end to form a circular twisted surface."
This is the Image used in the book (but also taken from http://scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/math/mobius.html)
Oppression as an identifying factor:
"By women as a category of analysis, I am referring to the critical assumption that all of us of the same gender, across classes and cultures, are somehow socially constituted as a homogeneous group identified prior to the process of analysis." "... in any given piece of feminist analysis, women are characterized as a singular group on the basis of a shared oppression." (337)
Irish Marion Young, in the 2nd chapter of Justice and the Politics of Difference discusses the "Five Faces of Oppression." She discusses group formation and the fact that oppression can not act as an overgeneralizing adjective in the discussion of group formation. Young writes, "...groups are not oppressed to the same extent or in the same ways. In the most general sense, all oppressed people suffer some inhibition of their ability to develop and exercise their capacities and express their needs, thoughts, and feelings." (Young, 40) The inability to use oppression as a blanket term falls in line with our original author's idea that considering 'Women' to be a group that is inherently oppressed is too limiting a description, and robs the individual 'Woman' or any agency (that the Western Woman is assumed to have).
Always-already constituted group:
"Thus, the discursively consensual homogeneity of 'women' as a group is mistaken for the historically specific material reality of groups of women. This results in an assumption of women as an always-already constituted group, one which has been labeled 'powerless,' 'exploited,' 'sexually harassed,' etc., by feminist scientific, economic, legal and sociological discourses." (338)
The negative qualities associated with women as a group are articulately listed, and call to mind the many ways in which women are blocked from resources or paths to agency as told by Marlyn Frye. In The Politics of Reality, Frye discusses oppression ( this essay can be found here ).She uses the mental image of a bird cage, where each way a woman turns she is blocked by a single wire, which should be easy enough to just fly around, but when the wires are arranged in a way to create a cage, the woman is blocked. The Mohanty article seems to suggest that Third World women do not share the same cage, but have different ones that are contingent upon their specific lives.
P.E.T.A. People:
"What is it about cultural Others that make it so easy to analytically formulate them into homogeneous groupings with little regard for historical specificites?" (340)
This just makes me think that the western women in question are just projecting their own insecurities about being pigeonholed into shallow gender roles. Are they treating Third world women like they treat bunnies that perfume is tested on them? Do they feel bad for these individuals while also infantilizing the idea of them? This argument is tangential and just a string of thought from my personal self, and should not be taken terribly seriously.
The Mobius Strip revisited:
The problem with this analytic strategy is that it assumes men and women are already constituted as sexual-political subjects prior to their entry into the arena of social relations." (340)
This needs very little explanation except to say that the mobius strips acts as a useful visual aid for understanding.
Western Eyes Revisited:
I am confused about the one-third and two-thirds world terminology. I am not so confused about what its literal meaning is, but more that it is posed in the revision as being new age jargon, and I've never heard of it before.
Page 509 lists changes that have occurred between the publication of the first and second article (16 years). These are jarring to say the least because, being 22 years old, I have not seen the changes happen, and assume that life now is as it has always been.
"The rise of religious fundamentalisms with their deeply masculinist and often racist rhetoric poses a huge challenge for feminist struggles around the world. Finally, the profoundly unequal "informational highway" as well as the increasing militarization (and masculinization) of the globe, accompanied by the growth of the prison industrial complex in the United States, pose profound contradictions in the lives of communities of women and men in the most parts of the world." (508)
Well, that's terrifying in a way that I was not prepared for.
I was also struck by the conversation in the article about reading up the ladder, which reminded me of an anecdote that I learned in high-school: The Elephant and the Mouse, where the mouse is an 'oppressed' group and the Elephant is the group with power. The Mouse has to know everything about itself AND the elephant, because if it does not know the Elephant's habits and whereabouts at all times, it risks being stepped on. The Elephant needs to know very little about the mouse, but when it sees the mouse it freaks out from fear.
Other stomach turning plot lines from the article:
The discussion on globalization and how it hurts women.
Global Identities:
"Most of the identities we can recognize have emerged during the era of modernity encompassing the rise of capitalism and the nation-state in the context of imperialism." (672)
I didn't find this article to be sprinkled with insightful tid-bits like the first two, but rather that it gave a comprehensive explanation of a history.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Presser
Negotiating Power and Narrative in Research: Implications for Feminist Methodology, by Lois Presser is the last article I will discuss for the week. In this article, the author explains a study of incarcerated individuals that have been convicted of violent crime, with an interest in the power relations inherent in the study. Interestingly, the author points out that much research done by women on men convicted of violence (specifically against women) lacks the depth of reflexivity needed to do research from a Feminist methodology.
The points I took away from this article are:
"Accounts are Situated," is a subtitle used by the author. I found this to be relevant on two levels. First, accounts given by the men discussed in the article are less than objective. Of course, these accounts are grounded in the perceptions the men have of themselves, the perceptions they think/fear the researcher will have of them, and lastly, how they would like to represent themselves(if that is different from who they believe they really are).
Secondly, as the author states, the accounts of female researchers are also situated. How they react to the men they are questioning, and how they respond emotionally have to do more with gender than with objectivity.
In terms of methodology, I found it very interesting and useful that Presser, in her study, showed literal dialogue, and then shared the notes she had taken at the time the dialogue occurred.
My second point of interest is Cross-Gender research. Presser, starting on page 2071, explains that during research, depending on the gender of a subject, a researcher of one gender might be able to obtain more or more in-depth information than the other. This, though it does not surprise me, is certainly interesting. Even though one might consider themselves a social scientist and a professional, gender still plays a part in the interaction of subject and researcher.
Concerning my third point: I found the most profound part of the study to be the section in which the author explains the power struggles she faced with male inmates. Presser explains that men would use terms of endearment with her. She also explains that some of the men would see participating in the research to be a sort of redemptive act; they were helping a woman, and this showed that they had changed and no longer conceived of women in the ways they once did, ways that led them to engage in violence. I was not hitherto unaware of such power struggles, but I found the anecdotal evidence to be extremely interesting in these cases.
The points I took away from this article are:
- Accounts are situated
- Cross-Gender research typically yields different results
- Female researchers are part of an implicated power struggle when researching men considered violent
"Accounts are Situated," is a subtitle used by the author. I found this to be relevant on two levels. First, accounts given by the men discussed in the article are less than objective. Of course, these accounts are grounded in the perceptions the men have of themselves, the perceptions they think/fear the researcher will have of them, and lastly, how they would like to represent themselves(if that is different from who they believe they really are).
Secondly, as the author states, the accounts of female researchers are also situated. How they react to the men they are questioning, and how they respond emotionally have to do more with gender than with objectivity.
In terms of methodology, I found it very interesting and useful that Presser, in her study, showed literal dialogue, and then shared the notes she had taken at the time the dialogue occurred.
My second point of interest is Cross-Gender research. Presser, starting on page 2071, explains that during research, depending on the gender of a subject, a researcher of one gender might be able to obtain more or more in-depth information than the other. This, though it does not surprise me, is certainly interesting. Even though one might consider themselves a social scientist and a professional, gender still plays a part in the interaction of subject and researcher.
Concerning my third point: I found the most profound part of the study to be the section in which the author explains the power struggles she faced with male inmates. Presser explains that men would use terms of endearment with her. She also explains that some of the men would see participating in the research to be a sort of redemptive act; they were helping a woman, and this showed that they had changed and no longer conceived of women in the ways they once did, ways that led them to engage in violence. I was not hitherto unaware of such power struggles, but I found the anecdotal evidence to be extremely interesting in these cases.
Fonow and Cook
The article Frminist Methodology: New Applications in the Academy and Public Policy by Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A. Cook, released in 2005, is a reconceptualization of the study these authors produced in 1991. This is similar to the first article I posted about in terms of subject matter, so I will use this post to discuss the points I found most interesting/important.
On page 2213, 5 "guiding principles of feminist methodology" are given. The third of these is "...challenging the norm of objectivity that assumes that the subject and object of research can be separated from each other and that personal and/or grounded experiences are unscientific". This line arrested my attention.
The first half, explaining that subject and researcher are NOT, in fact, sanitary and separate is especially interesting. When I think about who does research, I envision an academic. This person may be male or female but they are undeniably professional and rigid, and they wear elbow patches and glasses. Of course, this seems ridiculous, and rest assured that I do not labor under the assumption that all researchers are like this, but it is where my imagination takes me when I think of the word: research. The researcher here is exhaulted as an intellectual whereas the subject that they are studying is an object. The subject has certain attributes that makes studying them desirable, and their identities are not contingent or fluid. This manner of thinking denies that if a subject is studied, that study itself will impact it. Certainly, individuals respond to others, and certainly a subject will be altered by interaction with a researcher. The norm of objectivity then, is inherently flawed.
The second half of the statement, that personal experiences are NOT unscientific, was also hard-hitting. This implies that qualitative research can be just as important as quantitative, and even though I believe that is true, this though allows a concise lens through which to view research. A table on page 2214 lists the selected methods employed by Feminist Scholars. This table shows many types of qualitative methods, and this allows one to have a more scholarly understand about just WHAT qualitative methods are, as well as why they are important.
The authors concern themselves with the body in a way they had not i n1991. They state that the body can be seen as a "social category of analysis." I find this to be deeply interesting, when one considers the implications for qualitative analysis. To keep the body in mind when thinking about how to research seems like a new and profound approach.
Again, we think about Quality versus Quantity. In response to my own first post:
This article suggests that Quantitative methods have the "...power to alter public opinion in ways that a smaller number of in-depth interview do not." This is a much more concise phrasing than I used in my work, and a functional understanding of the debate. The authors offer a "multimethodism," which is directly in line with the agreed-upon commitment to understanding intersections of oppression that color the lives of individuals that feminists attempt to study.
On page 2213, 5 "guiding principles of feminist methodology" are given. The third of these is "...challenging the norm of objectivity that assumes that the subject and object of research can be separated from each other and that personal and/or grounded experiences are unscientific". This line arrested my attention.
The first half, explaining that subject and researcher are NOT, in fact, sanitary and separate is especially interesting. When I think about who does research, I envision an academic. This person may be male or female but they are undeniably professional and rigid, and they wear elbow patches and glasses. Of course, this seems ridiculous, and rest assured that I do not labor under the assumption that all researchers are like this, but it is where my imagination takes me when I think of the word: research. The researcher here is exhaulted as an intellectual whereas the subject that they are studying is an object. The subject has certain attributes that makes studying them desirable, and their identities are not contingent or fluid. This manner of thinking denies that if a subject is studied, that study itself will impact it. Certainly, individuals respond to others, and certainly a subject will be altered by interaction with a researcher. The norm of objectivity then, is inherently flawed.
The second half of the statement, that personal experiences are NOT unscientific, was also hard-hitting. This implies that qualitative research can be just as important as quantitative, and even though I believe that is true, this though allows a concise lens through which to view research. A table on page 2214 lists the selected methods employed by Feminist Scholars. This table shows many types of qualitative methods, and this allows one to have a more scholarly understand about just WHAT qualitative methods are, as well as why they are important.
The authors concern themselves with the body in a way they had not i n1991. They state that the body can be seen as a "social category of analysis." I find this to be deeply interesting, when one considers the implications for qualitative analysis. To keep the body in mind when thinking about how to research seems like a new and profound approach.
Again, we think about Quality versus Quantity. In response to my own first post:
This article suggests that Quantitative methods have the "...power to alter public opinion in ways that a smaller number of in-depth interview do not." This is a much more concise phrasing than I used in my work, and a functional understanding of the debate. The authors offer a "multimethodism," which is directly in line with the agreed-upon commitment to understanding intersections of oppression that color the lives of individuals that feminists attempt to study.
Beetham and Demetriades
The first article I endeavor to understand for this initial assignment is Feminist research methodologies and development: overview and practical application by Gwendolyn Beetham and Justina Demetriades.Before delving into gender implications, the authors make a point to define methodology. These women understand methodology as a theory, rather than an epistemology or research method. Epistemologies, they assert, are theories of knowledge whereas methodologies are theories of how one should conduct research. The difference, albeit subtle, is essential to one's understanding of feminist research. How can an individual do research on gender or difference if they do not operate using a candid methodology? If gender (at least in part) structures our interactions with others, if it allows for certain modes of questioning and understanding, and if it colors the ways in which we research and explain our findings, then it is in the best interest of all Women's Studies students to shape their own methodologies as well at learn those of Women's Studies as a whole.
As two of our three readings explain, there may not be a specific methodology that is feminist. What does color feminist research is an attempt to take intersectionality and depth of personal experience seriously. Page 200 of the article lists 5 tools researchers can use to create more gender-aware work.
Those listed are:
Beetham and Demetriades explain the Women in Development and Gender and Development paradigms for understanding womens' relationship to development (pg 200). As explained by the authors, the earlier 1970s produced a Women in Development theory that assumed women were in a compromising position in society primarily because they were kept from a professional marketplace. The later 70's gave rise to the Gender and Development theory, stemming from the critiques of (globally) southern women.
Until now in this post I have summarized some points in the article that are either new information for me or that I find to be interesting/important. From here on out I would like to think about the "Quantity versus quality" debate posed on page 205.
I already agree that gender and intersectionality should be seriously considered when conducting research, but this gives rise to the issue of what is the most efficient way to gather data about women. Quantitative research can produce hard-hitting statistics which can then be used as springboards for discussion. National surveys are used by researchers in Sociology, Anthropology and Family studies researchers. Would it not be invaluable to have a census for women concerning family dynamics and instances of violence in their lives? Also, gathering of quantitative data seems so much less laborious and tedious than qualitative. If we are to sit down with each individual we are studying to get lengthy interviews, then how long must we wait before publishing findings?
On the other hand, qualitative data can be so rich and informative, and it is much easier to think about relationship between researcher and subject when the they are spending a greater deal of time together.
It is nothing short of overwhelming to think about the implications of using one type or a conglomerate of styles of research to study women. Though i'm sure this course as well as the other articles due this week will clarify these questions for me, I find that these are the questions at the basis of feminist methodological studies.I am not unaware that these questions have been pondered before, and that there is (extensive?) writing about them, but I also feel that one must be troubled by these issues individually if they are attempting to do research through some sort of feminist methodology.
As two of our three readings explain, there may not be a specific methodology that is feminist. What does color feminist research is an attempt to take intersectionality and depth of personal experience seriously. Page 200 of the article lists 5 tools researchers can use to create more gender-aware work.
Those listed are:
- Awareness of hierarchical power relations
- Integration of diversity
- Analysis of the relationships between research parties
- Use of qualitative methods
- Adapting of hard-to-measure data into quantitative measurments
Beetham and Demetriades explain the Women in Development and Gender and Development paradigms for understanding womens' relationship to development (pg 200). As explained by the authors, the earlier 1970s produced a Women in Development theory that assumed women were in a compromising position in society primarily because they were kept from a professional marketplace. The later 70's gave rise to the Gender and Development theory, stemming from the critiques of (globally) southern women.
Until now in this post I have summarized some points in the article that are either new information for me or that I find to be interesting/important. From here on out I would like to think about the "Quantity versus quality" debate posed on page 205.
I already agree that gender and intersectionality should be seriously considered when conducting research, but this gives rise to the issue of what is the most efficient way to gather data about women. Quantitative research can produce hard-hitting statistics which can then be used as springboards for discussion. National surveys are used by researchers in Sociology, Anthropology and Family studies researchers. Would it not be invaluable to have a census for women concerning family dynamics and instances of violence in their lives? Also, gathering of quantitative data seems so much less laborious and tedious than qualitative. If we are to sit down with each individual we are studying to get lengthy interviews, then how long must we wait before publishing findings?
On the other hand, qualitative data can be so rich and informative, and it is much easier to think about relationship between researcher and subject when the they are spending a greater deal of time together.
It is nothing short of overwhelming to think about the implications of using one type or a conglomerate of styles of research to study women. Though i'm sure this course as well as the other articles due this week will clarify these questions for me, I find that these are the questions at the basis of feminist methodological studies.I am not unaware that these questions have been pondered before, and that there is (extensive?) writing about them, but I also feel that one must be troubled by these issues individually if they are attempting to do research through some sort of feminist methodology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)