Thursday, February 19, 2004
The arrogance of the narrator...
I've noticed a constant, if subtle, theme in a lot of the works i've had to or chosen to read over the past few years, one that i now feel stupid for not seeing before. And one that a million other people have probably seen, if not commented on somewhere i haven't noticed. ANYWAY: the theme is arrogance.
Take Durkheim for example. Or, indeed, most of of the well-known positivists, in science and social science. Durkheim just happens to be the one i was reading last night when i came across his view that those applying scientific methodology in the study of society should 'think differently from the ordinary person'. (yes, i ungendered that sentence. uh, hang me?) This appears to me to be connected to the age-old concept of the 'expert', the outsider who knows more about a given situation than those living it.
Feyerabend's ideas are relevant here. He sees the definition of 'science' and insistence on scientific purity as an exercise of power. Who defines 'science', and decides what fits or doesn't fit its remit? The aforementioned 'experts' might be a short answer.
So, while reading the above, i found myself thinking about other writers i'd encountered, most notably Edward Said. (mainly due to re-reading Orientalism last week) Said describes western 'Orientalists' taking control of the representation of non-western countries and people, constructing them as 'other' to the western 'self' and creating a narrative of an 'Orient' that never truly existed. Here, again, are experts narrating another's (an Other's?) story in the belief that they know best.
Many controversies in the social sciences, particularly but not exclusively in 'postal' theories, relate to the right or competency of one person to represent another, to narrate a story that is not their own. In addition, there is often a debate about the suitability of some subjects to narrate their own stories; surrounded, in many cases, by the claims of others - experts - to know better.
This could be said to link back to Durkheim, a case in point being his study of suicide. Durkheim's focus was on the external motivations for human behaviour, and his aim was to show that even such an apparently personal topic could be explained in such terms. Hence, the internal motivations of those who did (or did not) commit suicide weren't held by him to be relevant, or arguably to exist. His data, meanwhile, came from 'experts' - coroners and suchlike - rather than from those at what might be called the coalface, such as those who had attempted suicide or the families of those who had succeeded. He could, therefore, be regarded as a narrator claiming the right to tell another's story using his, not their, perceptions, in a way which may be considered arrogant.
I've noticed a constant, if subtle, theme in a lot of the works i've had to or chosen to read over the past few years, one that i now feel stupid for not seeing before. And one that a million other people have probably seen, if not commented on somewhere i haven't noticed. ANYWAY: the theme is arrogance.
Take Durkheim for example. Or, indeed, most of of the well-known positivists, in science and social science. Durkheim just happens to be the one i was reading last night when i came across his view that those applying scientific methodology in the study of society should 'think differently from the ordinary person'. (yes, i ungendered that sentence. uh, hang me?) This appears to me to be connected to the age-old concept of the 'expert', the outsider who knows more about a given situation than those living it.
Feyerabend's ideas are relevant here. He sees the definition of 'science' and insistence on scientific purity as an exercise of power. Who defines 'science', and decides what fits or doesn't fit its remit? The aforementioned 'experts' might be a short answer.
So, while reading the above, i found myself thinking about other writers i'd encountered, most notably Edward Said. (mainly due to re-reading Orientalism last week) Said describes western 'Orientalists' taking control of the representation of non-western countries and people, constructing them as 'other' to the western 'self' and creating a narrative of an 'Orient' that never truly existed. Here, again, are experts narrating another's (an Other's?) story in the belief that they know best.
Many controversies in the social sciences, particularly but not exclusively in 'postal' theories, relate to the right or competency of one person to represent another, to narrate a story that is not their own. In addition, there is often a debate about the suitability of some subjects to narrate their own stories; surrounded, in many cases, by the claims of others - experts - to know better.
This could be said to link back to Durkheim, a case in point being his study of suicide. Durkheim's focus was on the external motivations for human behaviour, and his aim was to show that even such an apparently personal topic could be explained in such terms. Hence, the internal motivations of those who did (or did not) commit suicide weren't held by him to be relevant, or arguably to exist. His data, meanwhile, came from 'experts' - coroners and suchlike - rather than from those at what might be called the coalface, such as those who had attempted suicide or the families of those who had succeeded. He could, therefore, be regarded as a narrator claiming the right to tell another's story using his, not their, perceptions, in a way which may be considered arrogant.
Monday, February 02, 2004
(first post since the blog got well and truly 'purpled'. congratulate me please on my grasp of html!)
The very visible girl
I saw a cartoon a while ago (New Internationalist, I think) called 'the invisible girl'. This was all about how girls are overlooked, ignored and (might as well be) invisible.
But, thinking about this, I can see another side to the problem. Because experience tells me that, while girls (and women) are invisible in many situations, there is another level at which the opposite is true. Females in western culture often have to contend with being too visible. Our 'femininity' gets scrutinised from the earliest possible point. We are monitored, and learn to monitor ourselves and each other. Then, when puberty hits, (or even before, given the availability of 'sexy' underwear for girls as young as nine) the great god *sex* enters the equation. And from this point, female bodies are public property. You can't get away from the 'gaze'. Everywhere, you are told how you 'should' be. (Should be thinner, have bigger breasts, use this, that or the other product, do this that or the other, etc) Anyone and everyone is entitled to make comments and pass judgement.
To be continued...
The very visible girl
I saw a cartoon a while ago (New Internationalist, I think) called 'the invisible girl'. This was all about how girls are overlooked, ignored and (might as well be) invisible.
But, thinking about this, I can see another side to the problem. Because experience tells me that, while girls (and women) are invisible in many situations, there is another level at which the opposite is true. Females in western culture often have to contend with being too visible. Our 'femininity' gets scrutinised from the earliest possible point. We are monitored, and learn to monitor ourselves and each other. Then, when puberty hits, (or even before, given the availability of 'sexy' underwear for girls as young as nine) the great god *sex* enters the equation. And from this point, female bodies are public property. You can't get away from the 'gaze'. Everywhere, you are told how you 'should' be. (Should be thinner, have bigger breasts, use this, that or the other product, do this that or the other, etc) Anyone and everyone is entitled to make comments and pass judgement.
To be continued...
