Unsettling the self: Autoethnography and related kin

IF 2.6 1区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Christine J. Walley, Denielle Elliott
{"title":"Unsettling the self: Autoethnography and related kin","authors":"Christine J. Walley,&nbsp;Denielle Elliott","doi":"10.1111/aman.28050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Autoethnography, intimate ethnography, and ethnographic memoir have become increasingly central modes of anthropological writing. Although this trend has historical precedents, as found in the work of Zora Neale Hurston, Ruth Behar, and others, this two-part special section explores the directions this work is taking, the potential contributions of such writing, and how we might analyze this trend. What does the expansion of these anthropological subgenres tell us both about our times and anthropology? How does “unsettling the self” require rethinking not only boundaries between selves and others, but our roles as anthropologists and our discipline in order to produce writing that, as Behar suggests, “does not alienate ourselves from our ourselves?” How does “unsettling the self” also entail, as Anand Pandian observes, “unsettling the world” around us, including explorations of contemporary capitalism, settler colonialism, racial politics, or the agency of natural environments or nonhumans? What are the ethical questions and the limits engendered by such work, and what might such trends bode for anthropology's future? This special section integrates examples of these growing anthropological subgenres alongside efforts to theorize this mode of writing as we attempt to answer Alisse Waterston's provocation: What is such work potentially “good for?”</p>","PeriodicalId":7697,"journal":{"name":"American Anthropologist","volume":"127 1","pages":"121-130"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aman.28050","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Anthropologist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.28050","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autoethnography, intimate ethnography, and ethnographic memoir have become increasingly central modes of anthropological writing. Although this trend has historical precedents, as found in the work of Zora Neale Hurston, Ruth Behar, and others, this two-part special section explores the directions this work is taking, the potential contributions of such writing, and how we might analyze this trend. What does the expansion of these anthropological subgenres tell us both about our times and anthropology? How does “unsettling the self” require rethinking not only boundaries between selves and others, but our roles as anthropologists and our discipline in order to produce writing that, as Behar suggests, “does not alienate ourselves from our ourselves?” How does “unsettling the self” also entail, as Anand Pandian observes, “unsettling the world” around us, including explorations of contemporary capitalism, settler colonialism, racial politics, or the agency of natural environments or nonhumans? What are the ethical questions and the limits engendered by such work, and what might such trends bode for anthropology's future? This special section integrates examples of these growing anthropological subgenres alongside efforts to theorize this mode of writing as we attempt to answer Alisse Waterston's provocation: What is such work potentially “good for?”

令人不安的自我:自我民族志和相关亲属
自我民族志、亲密民族志和民族志回忆录已日益成为人类学写作的核心模式。尽管这一趋势在历史上有先例,正如在佐拉·尼尔·赫斯顿、露丝·贝哈尔和其他人的作品中发现的那样,这个由两部分组成的特别部分探讨了这一工作的方向,这种写作的潜在贡献,以及我们如何分析这一趋势。这些人类学分支的扩张告诉我们关于我们的时代和人类学的什么?“扰乱自我”如何要求我们不仅重新思考自我与他人之间的界限,而且重新思考我们作为人类学家的角色和我们的学科,以便创作出正如Behar所建议的那样“不会疏远我们自己”的作品?正如阿南德·潘迪安(Anand Pandian)所观察到的那样,“扰乱自我”如何也包括我们周围的“扰乱世界”,包括对当代资本主义、定居者殖民主义、种族政治或自然环境或非人类的代理的探索?这些工作所产生的伦理问题和限制是什么?这些趋势对人类学的未来可能预示着什么?这个特别的部分整合了这些不断增长的人类学子类型的例子,并努力将这种写作模式理论化,因为我们试图回答阿利斯·沃特斯顿的挑衅:这样的工作有什么潜在的“好处”?
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
American Anthropologist
American Anthropologist ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.40%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: American Anthropologist is the flagship journal of the American Anthropological Association, reaching well over 12,000 readers with each issue. The journal advances the Association mission through publishing articles that add to, integrate, synthesize, and interpret anthropological knowledge; commentaries and essays on issues of importance to the discipline; and reviews of books, films, sound recordings and exhibits.
×
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