Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Christine DeLucia
{"title":"Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability","authors":"Christine DeLucia","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability Christine DeLucia (bio) HISTORIANS' work is an \"ethical enterprise\" involving foundational considerations of justice and accountability to past and present communities. Sharon Block frames these stakes for \"doing history\" in this incisive reflection on the methods and goals of early Americanists.1 In revisiting Rachel Davis and her social worlds, Block models one approach to an ethical practice of engagement with the past and its ongoing meanings. Her piece exemplifies relational approaches to scholarship that extend beyond academic boundaries and calls for substantive commitments to these processes among practitioners of early American history. On one level, the resulting narrative recontextualizes Rachel's devastating experiences with sexual violence in light of newly accessible information and revised interpretive frames. On another, it excavates structures of power and caretaking inherent in knowledge production and the possibilities—and challenges—of seeking to interact more intentionally with multiple communities invested in these stories. This is a compelling inaugural entry in the \"Methods and Practices\" section of the William and Mary Quarterly. It takes on nothing less than the necessity of \"remaking [the historical profession's] methods and values.\"2 In articulating these issues through the microhistories of Rachel's networks, centuries ago and today, Block emphasizes that she walks richly cultivated fields. Always attentive to genealogies, she cites and enters into fruitful dialogue with hard-fought-for interventions by African American, Indigenous, feminist, LGBTQ2S, and other scholars and practitioners who [End Page 685] contend with the American historical profession's epistemologies and exercises of authority. Among the questions she surfaces (to paraphrase): What does it mean to approach historical study through restorative processes? What forms of greater justice are possible—but still unrealized—through recovery-oriented research and storytelling? Can people occupying academic roles develop accountable, reciprocal relations with communities that are grounded in respect and mutuality rather than hierarchy and extraction? One of the piece's essential contributions is a discussion of how to situate the interpersonal sexual violence that Rachel Davis experienced at the hands of a fellow colonizer. This intimate gendered harm affected Rachel in ways both knowable and not. It occurred in contexts of larger societal violences enacted by settler colonizers and enslavers upon Indigenous and African American people. As Block explains, \"My renewed and ongoing focus on Rachel has helped me think about the task of tracking Black and Indigenous victims of sexual violence who may have left far fewer, if any, archival traces beyond rarely recorded moments of sexual victimization.\"3 Whose experiences with harrowing or even fatal sexual violence attain attention, care, visibility, and calls for redress by scholars and actors well beyond academia? Critically understanding Euro-colonial lives, including those of women who endured traumatic violations, means acknowledging Black and Indigenous lives that have been severely impacted by the systems and structures that enabled Euro-colonial development and power. Block invites extended conversations on these issues when she draws upon critical archive studies methods to discuss digital resources such as the website Find a Grave.4 This graveyard database—a crowdsourced, freely accessible online archive—is a valuable tool for certain kinds of genealogical and historical research. It allowed Block, sparked by information from a descendant and genealogist who had learned of a new entry for a Rachel [Davis] Coon in a graveyard in the twenty-third ward of Northeast Philadelphia, to locate and interpret with greater accuracy the final transits of Rachel's life. \"Surrounded by the graves of her extended family,\" Rachel remained connected with relations who likely shaped the decisions about where and how she was commemorated.5 The Presbyterian Church–affiliated graveyard seems to have remained relatively intact over time, rather than being disturbed by the building of a highway or otherwise obliterated. By contrast, the burial grounds created and honored by many African American and Indigenous communities have been (and continue to be) damaged, plundered, or outright destroyed in the course of American \"development,\" and legible records of people and places either were not maintained in the first place or have also been undermined. [End Page 686] Reading about this new turn to the story, I began to think about the graveyard's proximity to sites...","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910397","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability Christine DeLucia (bio) HISTORIANS' work is an "ethical enterprise" involving foundational considerations of justice and accountability to past and present communities. Sharon Block frames these stakes for "doing history" in this incisive reflection on the methods and goals of early Americanists.1 In revisiting Rachel Davis and her social worlds, Block models one approach to an ethical practice of engagement with the past and its ongoing meanings. Her piece exemplifies relational approaches to scholarship that extend beyond academic boundaries and calls for substantive commitments to these processes among practitioners of early American history. On one level, the resulting narrative recontextualizes Rachel's devastating experiences with sexual violence in light of newly accessible information and revised interpretive frames. On another, it excavates structures of power and caretaking inherent in knowledge production and the possibilities—and challenges—of seeking to interact more intentionally with multiple communities invested in these stories. This is a compelling inaugural entry in the "Methods and Practices" section of the William and Mary Quarterly. It takes on nothing less than the necessity of "remaking [the historical profession's] methods and values."2 In articulating these issues through the microhistories of Rachel's networks, centuries ago and today, Block emphasizes that she walks richly cultivated fields. Always attentive to genealogies, she cites and enters into fruitful dialogue with hard-fought-for interventions by African American, Indigenous, feminist, LGBTQ2S, and other scholars and practitioners who [End Page 685] contend with the American historical profession's epistemologies and exercises of authority. Among the questions she surfaces (to paraphrase): What does it mean to approach historical study through restorative processes? What forms of greater justice are possible—but still unrealized—through recovery-oriented research and storytelling? Can people occupying academic roles develop accountable, reciprocal relations with communities that are grounded in respect and mutuality rather than hierarchy and extraction? One of the piece's essential contributions is a discussion of how to situate the interpersonal sexual violence that Rachel Davis experienced at the hands of a fellow colonizer. This intimate gendered harm affected Rachel in ways both knowable and not. It occurred in contexts of larger societal violences enacted by settler colonizers and enslavers upon Indigenous and African American people. As Block explains, "My renewed and ongoing focus on Rachel has helped me think about the task of tracking Black and Indigenous victims of sexual violence who may have left far fewer, if any, archival traces beyond rarely recorded moments of sexual victimization."3 Whose experiences with harrowing or even fatal sexual violence attain attention, care, visibility, and calls for redress by scholars and actors well beyond academia? Critically understanding Euro-colonial lives, including those of women who endured traumatic violations, means acknowledging Black and Indigenous lives that have been severely impacted by the systems and structures that enabled Euro-colonial development and power. Block invites extended conversations on these issues when she draws upon critical archive studies methods to discuss digital resources such as the website Find a Grave.4 This graveyard database—a crowdsourced, freely accessible online archive—is a valuable tool for certain kinds of genealogical and historical research. It allowed Block, sparked by information from a descendant and genealogist who had learned of a new entry for a Rachel [Davis] Coon in a graveyard in the twenty-third ward of Northeast Philadelphia, to locate and interpret with greater accuracy the final transits of Rachel's life. "Surrounded by the graves of her extended family," Rachel remained connected with relations who likely shaped the decisions about where and how she was commemorated.5 The Presbyterian Church–affiliated graveyard seems to have remained relatively intact over time, rather than being disturbed by the building of a highway or otherwise obliterated. By contrast, the burial grounds created and honored by many African American and Indigenous communities have been (and continue to be) damaged, plundered, or outright destroyed in the course of American "development," and legible records of people and places either were not maintained in the first place or have also been undermined. [End Page 686] Reading about this new turn to the story, I began to think about the graveyard's proximity to sites...
寻求对话和问责圈
Christine DeLucia(生物)历史学家的工作是一项“伦理事业”,涉及对过去和现在社区的正义和责任的基本考虑。在对早期美国学家的方法和目标的深刻反思中,莎伦·布洛克为“研究历史”构建了这些利害关系。1在重新审视蕾切尔·戴维斯和她的社会世界时,布洛克为参与过去及其持续意义的伦理实践提供了一种方法。她的作品体现了超越学术界限的关系研究方法,并呼吁早期美国历史的实践者对这些过程作出实质性的承诺。在一个层面上,根据新获得的信息和修订的解释框架,由此产生的叙述将雷切尔遭受性暴力的毁灭性经历重新置于背景中。另一方面,它挖掘了知识生产中固有的权力和照顾结构,以及寻求更有意地与投资于这些故事的多个社区互动的可能性和挑战。这是《威廉与玛丽季刊》“方法与实践”部分中引人注目的首篇文章。它的必要性不亚于“重塑(历史专业的)方法和价值观”。布洛克通过几个世纪前和今天雷切尔网络的微观历史来阐述这些问题,强调她行走在富饶的土地上。她总是关注谱系,她引用了非裔美国人、土著、女权主义者、LGBTQ2S和其他学者和实践者的努力,并与他们进行了富有成效的对话,这些学者和实践者与美国历史专业的认识论和权威的运用相抗争。在她提出的问题中(转述一下):通过恢复性过程进行历史研究意味着什么?通过以恢复为导向的研究和讲故事,哪些形式的更大的正义是可能的——但仍未实现?担任学术角色的人能否在尊重和互惠的基础上,而不是在等级和压榨的基础上,与社区发展负责任的互惠关系?这篇文章的重要贡献之一是讨论了如何将蕾切尔·戴维斯所经历的人际性暴力置于殖民者同伴的手中。这种亲密的性别伤害以一种不知不觉的方式影响着瑞秋。它发生在殖民者和奴隶主对土著和非裔美国人施加更大的社会暴力的背景下。正如布洛克所解释的那样,“我对瑞秋的重新关注和持续关注,帮助我思考了追踪性暴力的黑人和土著受害者的任务,这些人除了很少记录的性受害者时刻之外,可能留下的档案痕迹要少得多,如果有的话。”谁的悲惨甚至致命的性暴力经历得到了学术界以外的学者和行动者的关注、关心、关注和纠正呼吁?批判性地理解欧洲殖民主义的生活,包括那些遭受创伤性侵犯的妇女的生活,意味着承认黑人和土著居民的生活受到了使欧洲殖民主义得以发展和掌权的制度和结构的严重影响。当她利用关键的档案研究方法来讨论数字资源(如网站Find a grave4)时,Block邀请对这些问题进行扩展的对话。这个墓地数据库——一个众包的,免费访问的在线档案——是某些类型的家谱和历史研究的有价值的工具。布洛克从一位后裔和系谱学家那里得知了雷切尔·[戴维斯]·库恩(Rachel [Davis] Coon)在费城东北部第二十三区的一个墓地里的新记录,从而更准确地定位和解释了雷切尔生命的最后转折。“被她大家庭的坟墓包围着,”瑞秋与亲戚保持着联系,他们可能决定了在哪里以及如何纪念她长老会附属的墓地随着时间的推移似乎保持相对完整,而不是被高速公路的建设扰乱或以其他方式消失。相比之下,许多非裔美国人和土著社区建立和尊重的墓地在美国的“发展”过程中遭到(并将继续)破坏、掠夺或彻底摧毁,有关人物和地点的清晰记录要么一开始就没有保存下来,要么也被破坏了。读到这个故事的新转折,我开始思考墓地与遗址的接近……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信