Reflexivity: Soulfulness in Methodology
The word “reflexivity” derives from the Medieval Latin reflexivus and from the Latin reflexus (Merriam-Webster Online). The Etymology Dictionary Online gives the definition of reflexus as “a bending back” (Online Etymology Dictionary). The meanings of reflexivity are: something “directed or turned back on itself”; “marked by or capable of reflection”; and “of, related to, characterized by, or being a relation that exists between an entity and itself” (Merriam-Webster Online). Within the meanings of the word “reflexivity,” there are associations with reflections, mirrors, and the play between the unconscious and conscious, the Ego and the Self.
I remember, once upon a time, when I was on the cheerleading team in eighth grade and I had to learn how to do a backbend. Everyday I would lean back as far as I could and put my arms up over my head, but I just did not feel safe to let go, even when I had piles of pillows underneath me to catch my fall.
Then the idea hit me: I could learn to do a backbend off of the diving board into the pool without being hurt. Water was always forgiving because not only did it reflect the surface images, but it also let me see through it to the bottom of things. So, I took a deep breath, bent backwards with my arms over my head and jumped off the board into the cool water. It was my first try and the unbelievable part was that I did a perfect back dive.
Reflecting on my first back dive experience has led me to think about how reflexivity in relation to ethnographic fieldwork and encountering the Other, is both a mirror and a window. The Other can be a mirror of our passions, our frustrations and our biases. In Clifford Geertz’s essay, “‘From the Native's Point of View’: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding,” he describes an entry from Branislov Malinowski’s journal written while working in the field. Geertz reports that, to many an ethnographer’s dismay, Malinowski “had rude things to say about the natives he was living with, and rude words to say it in. He spent a great deal of time wishing he were elsewhere” (Geertz 50).
Within this example, I sense that Malinowski may have been experiencing anxiety from the mirroring process of integrating the Other. During the mirroring/reflection process the scholar must withdraw their presumptions and projections from the Other, weakening the egocentric position as a result. This “bending back” is certainly uncomfortable at first and will usually incite anger and negative emotions. It is also certain that because of the reflexive nature of scholarship, the Other being studied will most likely have negative feelings towards the researcher. The reflexive relationship transforms the perceptions that both the scholar and the Other hold of one another and their cultures. As Geertz puts it, there is no magical recipe to step into a native’s skin, and even if you tried they would not be too happy about it. Instead Geertz suggests to perceive “with” or “by means of” or “through” (Geertz 52): “The trick is to figure out what the devil they think they are up to” (Geertz 52 ). It is even more important, however, to have a clear idea of what the devil we think we are up to before diving into studying the Other.
In the last session, we discussed Margery Wolf’s work from the feminist perspective and now I wish to direct our attention to her remarks about reflexivity. Wolf says, “experience is messy” (Wolf 355) precisely because all cultures are extremely complex, as well as the individuals studying them.
When human behavior is the data, a tolerance for ambiguity, multiplicity, contradiction, and instability is essential. (Wolf 355)
Therefor, the metaphor of a mirror fails to show the deeper inconsistencies present within a culture; it obscures the Other, and in turn causes the scholar to get lost in their own narcissistic reflection.
Keeping the self distinct from the Other means keeping firm boundaries intact, while at the same time allowing for messiness and projections to exist. The metaphor of a multi-paned, multi-colored window allows for a perspective in which the ethnographer can see through to the Other, while allowing some play with surface reflections on the glass. Sometimes the window panes will be clear and sometimes they will be clouded and distorted, but still the Other “will appear [...] sharply distinct in their differences, yet recognizably human in their resemblances” (Wolf 357; quoting Rosaldo 1989: 39-40).
Like religion and culture, the soul is full of complexity and cannot be viewed in a one-sided fashion, without becoming flat and one-dimensional. Each angle that a scholar uses to view the Other’s soul will contribute to a more realistic and true-to-life, though still imperfect and sometimes paradoxical, interpretation. My sense then is to allow the soul images gathered from fieldwork to live a messy, three-dimensional, multi-valenced life.
So, how can a scholar disclose information, which is essentially their interpretation, about another culture without getting caught up in their own projections? And: Is this even a possibility, or are we just kidding ourselves and putting on the mask of scholarship to cover up our cultural need for self-discovery?
These difficult questions, and more, are tackled by David J. Hufford in his essay, “The Scholarly Voice and the Personal Voice: Reflexivity in Belief Studies,” in which he states:
Reflexivity is a response to the egocentric predicament, and it parallels responses to awareness of the ethnocentric predicament. Both risk mere self-justification, but both have the potential to reveal the culturally-situated, human quality of all knowledge. (Hufford 295)
Knowledge, and its integrity, is at stake when scholars undertake fieldwork without including reflexivity as part of their methodology. Part of this problem is solved by keeping in mind one’s own spiritual beliefs, which are also a sort of bias, while observing the Other and their religious systems. I agree with Hufford that if religion represents a “people’s ultimate concerns,” it is impossible as an observer of an Other’s religion to stay impartial (Hufford 297). He asks, reflexively, “Is disbelief in the study of spiritual belief a view from nowhere?” The answer is decidedly “no” because belief and disbelief both represent a point of view, each with its own set of prejudices. In his book, Interpreting the Sacred, William Paden makes similar remarks in his chapter on “The Contextuality of Interpretation”:
Interpretation is never disembodied. When we see the world and when we see religion we always do so from somewhere. (Paden 111)
When studying an Other’s religion, we are really looking at their soul, and then translating the Other’s images of soul into a vocabulary that comes from our own set of beliefs, our own categories and language. Paden calls this phenomenon “the hermeneutic circle,” and goes on to say “that what we say about any object is already interwoven with what we have asked and assumed about it” (Paden 116).
To be honest, I have been interested in the topic of reflexivity because of my own deepest doubts about doing fieldwork in Brazil for my dissertation topic on Candomble. Candomble, like all religions, is complex and messy. For example, in Candomble there are many different nations, depending on which part of Africa their set of beliefs come from. Presently, some Candomble houses, called terrieros, are calling to remove the Catholic saints from the religion and worship the orixas directly, while others wish to keep the traditional ways intact, which developed out of experiences during the slave trade.
I will also be dealing with the fact that I am a female drummer, and therefor may often be excluded from my preferred mode of participation in many Candomble houses. Through pre-dissertation research, I have learned that even though women are highly regarded in Candomble, they traditionally do not play drums during ritual. Their role is to trance dance and become the horse for the orixas to mount. This bothers me because I am used to playing whenever and wherever I wish, within reason. I’m also not partial to be excluded from activities because of my gender. As much as this feels like “patriarchal oppression,” it is part of the reality of the Candomble tradition which I must respect in spite of my personal feelings and cultural biases regarding gender issues.
Like other scholars working in the field of ethnography, abroad and at home, I will need to be aware of as many of my biases and presumptions as I possibly can. I will also need to be aware that no matter how much preliminary research I conduct before starting my fieldwork, I will never be prepared for the messiness that will naturally occur. All I can do is back dive in with my eyes, arms and heart wide open, and enjoy the dialogue that emerges from multiple views.
Works Cited
Geertz, Clifford. “‘From the Natives Point of View’ : On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding.” The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Ed. Russell T. McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. 50-67.
Hufford, David J. “The Scholarly Voice and the Personal Voice: Reflexivity in Belief Studies.” The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Ed. Russell T. McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. 294-310.
Merriam-Webster Online. “Reflexivity.” 8 April 2005.
.
Online Etymology Dictionary. “Reflexus.” 8 April 2005.
.
Paden, William E. Interpreting the Sacred: Ways of Viewing Religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 2003.
Wolf, Margery. “Writing Ethnography: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.” The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Ed. Russell T. McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. 354-361.
I remember, once upon a time, when I was on the cheerleading team in eighth grade and I had to learn how to do a backbend. Everyday I would lean back as far as I could and put my arms up over my head, but I just did not feel safe to let go, even when I had piles of pillows underneath me to catch my fall.
Then the idea hit me: I could learn to do a backbend off of the diving board into the pool without being hurt. Water was always forgiving because not only did it reflect the surface images, but it also let me see through it to the bottom of things. So, I took a deep breath, bent backwards with my arms over my head and jumped off the board into the cool water. It was my first try and the unbelievable part was that I did a perfect back dive.
Reflecting on my first back dive experience has led me to think about how reflexivity in relation to ethnographic fieldwork and encountering the Other, is both a mirror and a window. The Other can be a mirror of our passions, our frustrations and our biases. In Clifford Geertz’s essay, “‘From the Native's Point of View’: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding,” he describes an entry from Branislov Malinowski’s journal written while working in the field. Geertz reports that, to many an ethnographer’s dismay, Malinowski “had rude things to say about the natives he was living with, and rude words to say it in. He spent a great deal of time wishing he were elsewhere” (Geertz 50).
Within this example, I sense that Malinowski may have been experiencing anxiety from the mirroring process of integrating the Other. During the mirroring/reflection process the scholar must withdraw their presumptions and projections from the Other, weakening the egocentric position as a result. This “bending back” is certainly uncomfortable at first and will usually incite anger and negative emotions. It is also certain that because of the reflexive nature of scholarship, the Other being studied will most likely have negative feelings towards the researcher. The reflexive relationship transforms the perceptions that both the scholar and the Other hold of one another and their cultures. As Geertz puts it, there is no magical recipe to step into a native’s skin, and even if you tried they would not be too happy about it. Instead Geertz suggests to perceive “with” or “by means of” or “through” (Geertz 52): “The trick is to figure out what the devil they think they are up to” (Geertz 52 ). It is even more important, however, to have a clear idea of what the devil we think we are up to before diving into studying the Other.
In the last session, we discussed Margery Wolf’s work from the feminist perspective and now I wish to direct our attention to her remarks about reflexivity. Wolf says, “experience is messy” (Wolf 355) precisely because all cultures are extremely complex, as well as the individuals studying them.
When human behavior is the data, a tolerance for ambiguity, multiplicity, contradiction, and instability is essential. (Wolf 355)
Therefor, the metaphor of a mirror fails to show the deeper inconsistencies present within a culture; it obscures the Other, and in turn causes the scholar to get lost in their own narcissistic reflection.
Keeping the self distinct from the Other means keeping firm boundaries intact, while at the same time allowing for messiness and projections to exist. The metaphor of a multi-paned, multi-colored window allows for a perspective in which the ethnographer can see through to the Other, while allowing some play with surface reflections on the glass. Sometimes the window panes will be clear and sometimes they will be clouded and distorted, but still the Other “will appear [...] sharply distinct in their differences, yet recognizably human in their resemblances” (Wolf 357; quoting Rosaldo 1989: 39-40).
Like religion and culture, the soul is full of complexity and cannot be viewed in a one-sided fashion, without becoming flat and one-dimensional. Each angle that a scholar uses to view the Other’s soul will contribute to a more realistic and true-to-life, though still imperfect and sometimes paradoxical, interpretation. My sense then is to allow the soul images gathered from fieldwork to live a messy, three-dimensional, multi-valenced life.
So, how can a scholar disclose information, which is essentially their interpretation, about another culture without getting caught up in their own projections? And: Is this even a possibility, or are we just kidding ourselves and putting on the mask of scholarship to cover up our cultural need for self-discovery?
These difficult questions, and more, are tackled by David J. Hufford in his essay, “The Scholarly Voice and the Personal Voice: Reflexivity in Belief Studies,” in which he states:
Reflexivity is a response to the egocentric predicament, and it parallels responses to awareness of the ethnocentric predicament. Both risk mere self-justification, but both have the potential to reveal the culturally-situated, human quality of all knowledge. (Hufford 295)
Knowledge, and its integrity, is at stake when scholars undertake fieldwork without including reflexivity as part of their methodology. Part of this problem is solved by keeping in mind one’s own spiritual beliefs, which are also a sort of bias, while observing the Other and their religious systems. I agree with Hufford that if religion represents a “people’s ultimate concerns,” it is impossible as an observer of an Other’s religion to stay impartial (Hufford 297). He asks, reflexively, “Is disbelief in the study of spiritual belief a view from nowhere?” The answer is decidedly “no” because belief and disbelief both represent a point of view, each with its own set of prejudices. In his book, Interpreting the Sacred, William Paden makes similar remarks in his chapter on “The Contextuality of Interpretation”:
Interpretation is never disembodied. When we see the world and when we see religion we always do so from somewhere. (Paden 111)
When studying an Other’s religion, we are really looking at their soul, and then translating the Other’s images of soul into a vocabulary that comes from our own set of beliefs, our own categories and language. Paden calls this phenomenon “the hermeneutic circle,” and goes on to say “that what we say about any object is already interwoven with what we have asked and assumed about it” (Paden 116).
To be honest, I have been interested in the topic of reflexivity because of my own deepest doubts about doing fieldwork in Brazil for my dissertation topic on Candomble. Candomble, like all religions, is complex and messy. For example, in Candomble there are many different nations, depending on which part of Africa their set of beliefs come from. Presently, some Candomble houses, called terrieros, are calling to remove the Catholic saints from the religion and worship the orixas directly, while others wish to keep the traditional ways intact, which developed out of experiences during the slave trade.
I will also be dealing with the fact that I am a female drummer, and therefor may often be excluded from my preferred mode of participation in many Candomble houses. Through pre-dissertation research, I have learned that even though women are highly regarded in Candomble, they traditionally do not play drums during ritual. Their role is to trance dance and become the horse for the orixas to mount. This bothers me because I am used to playing whenever and wherever I wish, within reason. I’m also not partial to be excluded from activities because of my gender. As much as this feels like “patriarchal oppression,” it is part of the reality of the Candomble tradition which I must respect in spite of my personal feelings and cultural biases regarding gender issues.
Like other scholars working in the field of ethnography, abroad and at home, I will need to be aware of as many of my biases and presumptions as I possibly can. I will also need to be aware that no matter how much preliminary research I conduct before starting my fieldwork, I will never be prepared for the messiness that will naturally occur. All I can do is back dive in with my eyes, arms and heart wide open, and enjoy the dialogue that emerges from multiple views.
Works Cited
Geertz, Clifford. “‘From the Natives Point of View’ : On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding.” The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Ed. Russell T. McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. 50-67.
Hufford, David J. “The Scholarly Voice and the Personal Voice: Reflexivity in Belief Studies.” The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Ed. Russell T. McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. 294-310.
Merriam-Webster Online. “Reflexivity.” 8 April 2005.
Online Etymology Dictionary. “Reflexus.” 8 April 2005.
Paden, William E. Interpreting the Sacred: Ways of Viewing Religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 2003.
Wolf, Margery. “Writing Ethnography: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.” The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Ed. Russell T. McCutcheon. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. 354-361.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home