Comments on: CCR691 – Ethnography Ch. 2 Horner – For Comment http://justinlewis.me/me/2009/09/25/ccr691-ethnography-ch-2-horner-for-comment/ Wed, 09 May 2012 17:11:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eileen E. Schell http://justinlewis.me/me/2009/09/25/ccr691-ethnography-ch-2-horner-for-comment/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Eileen E. Schell Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:53:15 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/?p=77#comment-23 Horner makes it clear in the introduction to his essay that he's going after the "road to [ethnographic] hell paved with good [postmodern] intentions." He is bringing a cultural materialist perspective that questions some of the cherished maxims of critical ethnography. Horner faults maximistic claims about collaboration, multivocality, and self-reflexivity on the grounds that they are not "materialist enough in the framework in which they understand that model, and so the recommendations they present remain insufficient" (15). Horner wants us to question the unexamined issue of labor in our research practices in critical ethnography (thanks Bruce, we need to question the unexamined issue of labor in all we do, I would argue, but that's another rant for another day). I think he's right generally speaking, but I'd like to see more examples of how people can engage the materiality of research practices in ethnography. Ellen Cushman is an example of someone grappling with these issues in her book _The Struggle and the Tools_, and he mentions her briefly. But I'm left wanting more examples of researchers who balance materiality with their research practices. I agree with his concluding statement, but I want more about "HOW" to achieve/negotiate this mix and "develop a multiplicity of strategies" for ethnographic research that involve an acknowledgment of materiality. Horner makes it clear in the introduction to his essay that he’s going after the “road to [ethnographic] hell paved with good [postmodern] intentions.” He is bringing a cultural materialist perspective that questions some of the cherished maxims of critical ethnography. Horner faults maximistic claims about collaboration, multivocality, and self-reflexivity on the grounds that they are not “materialist enough in the framework in which they understand that model, and so the recommendations they present remain insufficient” (15). Horner wants us to question the unexamined issue of labor in our research practices in critical ethnography (thanks Bruce, we need to question the unexamined issue of labor in all we do, I would argue, but that’s another rant for another day). I think he’s right generally speaking, but I’d like to see more examples of how people can engage the materiality of research practices in ethnography. Ellen Cushman is an example of someone grappling with these issues in her book _The Struggle and the Tools_, and he mentions her briefly. But I’m left wanting more examples of researchers who balance materiality with their research practices. I agree with his concluding statement, but I want more about “HOW” to achieve/negotiate this mix and “develop a multiplicity of strategies” for ethnographic research that involve an acknowledgment of materiality.

]]> By: Luce http://justinlewis.me/me/2009/09/25/ccr691-ethnography-ch-2-horner-for-comment/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Luce Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:47:55 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/?p=77#comment-22 Under the multivocality section I was transported back to 601 (again) and remember my frustration in reading a Jonathan Alexander piece (the title I cannot recall due to a lack of proper noun uptake) in which he claims to be collaborating with folks but it is clear in tone and the way that the article was written, was not collaborative in delivery. My mother used to say: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and I used to roll my eyes and mutter incoherently in pubescent defiance, yet there is perhaps some truth to that. Was it Alexander's intention to create a collaborative piece? Absolutely and fabulously so. And I think he worked very hard to make that happen. But it was not the model of multivocality that I would envision or that you would hope critical ethnographers to realize. Perhaps material conditions troubled his ability to do it. I think the one thing I wonder, especially in reading your response, is the bifurcation of possibility and gesture. In other words, while Alexander could have done it better, does his attempt, no matter how failed, count as a gesture toward the possibility of critical ethnography? Under the multivocality section I was transported back to 601 (again) and remember my frustration in reading a Jonathan Alexander piece (the title I cannot recall due to a lack of proper noun uptake) in which he claims to be collaborating with folks but it is clear in tone and the way that the article was written, was not collaborative in delivery. My mother used to say: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” and I used to roll my eyes and mutter incoherently in pubescent defiance, yet there is perhaps some truth to that. Was it Alexander’s intention to create a collaborative piece? Absolutely and fabulously so. And I think he worked very hard to make that happen. But it was not the model of multivocality that I would envision or that you would hope critical ethnographers to realize. Perhaps material conditions troubled his ability to do it.

I think the one thing I wonder, especially in reading your response, is the bifurcation of possibility and gesture. In other words, while Alexander could have done it better, does his attempt, no matter how failed, count as a gesture toward the possibility of critical ethnography?

]]>