Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:30:22.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transcending objectivism, subjectivism, and the knowledge in-between: the subject in/of ‘strong reflexivity’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2013

INANNA HAMATI-ATAYA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses the problématique of the subject and the subject-object dichotomy from a post-objectivist, reflexivist perspective informed by a ‘strong’ version of reflexivity. It clarifies the rationale and epistemic-ontological requirements of strong reflexivity comparatively, through a discussion of autoethnography and autobiography, taken as representatives of other variants of reflexive scholarship. By deconstructing the ontological, epistemic, and reflexive statuses of the subject in the auto-ethnographic and auto-biographical variants, the article shows that the move from objectivism to post-objectivism can entail different reconfigurations of the subject-object relation, some of which can lead to subjectivism or an implicit positivist view of the subject. Strong reflexivity provides a coherent and empowering critique of objectivism because it consistently turns the ontological fact of the social situatedness of knowledge into an epistemic principle of social-scientific research, thereby providing reflexivist scholars with a critique of objectivism from within that allows them to reclaim the philosophical, social, and ethical dimensions of objectivity rather than surrender them to the dominant neopositivist tradition.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 153 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mark Neufeld, ‘The Reflexive Turn and International Relations Theory’, CISS Working Paper No. 4 (1991).

2 Neufeld, Mark, The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guzzini, Stefano, ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), pp. 147–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guillaume, Xavier, ‘Reflexivity and Subjectivity: A Dialogical Perspective for and on International Relations Theory’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3:3 (2002), Art. 13, available at: {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0203133} accessed 1 March 2010Google Scholar; Leander, Anna, ‘Do We Really Need Reflexivity in IPE? Bourdieu's Two Reasons For Answering Affirmatively’, Review of International Political Economy, 9:4 (2002), pp. 601–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Steve, ‘Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11’, International Studies Quarterly, 48:3 (2004), pp. 499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Drulàk, Peter, ‘Reflexivity and Structural Change’, in Guzzini, Stefano and Leander, Anna (eds), Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics (New York: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar; Tickner, J. Ann, ‘What is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions’, International Studies Quarterly, 49 (2005), pp. 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘On the Frontlines or Sidelines of Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of Responsible Scholarship’, International Studies Review, 8 (2006), pp. 383–95; Hamati-Ataya, Inanna, ‘The “Problem of Values” and International Relations Scholarship: From Applied Reflexivity to Reflexivism’, International Studies Review, 13:2 (2011), pp. 260–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eagleton-Pierce, Matthew, ‘Advancing a Reflexive International Relations’, Millennium, 39:3 (2011), pp. 805–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar.

4 For an overview of reflexivity in the social sciences, see Ashmore, Malcolm, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989)Google Scholar and Lynch, Michael, ‘Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge’, Theory, Culture & Society, 17:3 (2000), pp. 26–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For reflexivity in IR, see Eagleton-Pierce, ‘Advancing’ and Hamati-Ataya, Inanna, ‘Reflectivity, Reflexivity, Reflexivism: IR's “Reflexive Turn” – and Beyond’, European Journal of International Relations (2012), DOI: 10.1177/1354066112437770Google Scholar.

5 Smith, Dorothy E., ‘Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology’, in Harding, Sandra (ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 28Google Scholar.

6 Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry, p. 37.

7 Donna Haraway, ‘Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, pp. 81–101 and Sandra Harding, ‘Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is “Strong Objectivity”’, pp. 127–42, in Harding (ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader.

8 Blaney, David and Tickner, Arlene, ‘Introduction’, in Tickner, Arlene and Blaney, David, Worlding Beyond the West, Volume 3: Claiming the International (New York: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar.

9 Clifford, James, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Clifford, James and Marcus, George E. (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Marcus, George E., Ethnography Through Thick and Thin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Marcus, George E. and Fischer, Michael M. J., Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences (2nd edn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999 [orig. pub. 1986])Google Scholar.

10 Ellis, Carolyn and Bochner, Arthur, ‘Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject’, in Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvonna (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000), p. 739Google Scholar.

11 Ibid.

12 Spry, Tami, ‘Performing Autoethnography: An Embodied Methodological Praxis’, Qualitative Inquiry, 7:6 (2001), pp. 706–32, 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Jones, Stacy Holman, ‘Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political’, in Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvonna (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005), p. 764Google Scholar.

14 Spry, ‘Performing’, p. 710.

15 Alexander, Bryant Keith, ‘Performance Ethnography: The Reenacting and Inciting of Culture’, in Denzin, and Lincoln, (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, p. 424Google Scholar.

16 Mark Neumann, quoted in Holman Jones, ‘Autoethnography’, p. 765.

17 Alexander, ‘Performance’, p. 424.

18 Corey, Fred C., ‘The Personal: Against the Master Narrative’, in Dailey, Sheron J. (ed.), The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions (Annandale, VA: National Communication Association, 1998), p. 250Google Scholar.

19 Kruzel, Joseph and Rosenau, James (eds), Journeys through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-Four Academic Travelers (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989)Google Scholar; Ken Booth, ‘Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist’, Occasional Paper No. 26, York University, Centre for International and Strategic Studies (1994). See also Halliday, Fred, Rosenberg, Justin, and Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Interview with Ken Waltz’, Review of International Studies, 24:3 (1998), pp. 371–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Theory Talks: {www.theory-talks.org}.

20 Berger, Leigh, ‘Inside Out: Narrative Autoethnography as a Path Toward Rapport’, Qualitative Inquiry, 7:4 (2001), pp. 504–18, 506CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Nora, Pierre, Essais d'ego-histoire (Paris: Gallimard, 1987)Google Scholar.

22 Weintraub, Roy E. and Forget, Evelyn L. (eds), Economists’ Lives: Biography and Autobiography in the History of Economics (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

23 Dauphinee, Elizabeth, The Ethics of Researching War: Looking for Bosnia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Doty, Roxanne Lynn, ‘Maladies of Our Souls: Identity and Voice in the Writing of Academic International Relations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17:2 (2004), pp. 377–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inayatullah, Naeem, ‘Something There: Love, War, and Basketball in Afghanistan: An Antidotal Memoir’, Intertexts, 7:2 (2003), pp. 143–56Google Scholar and ‘Falling and Flying. An Introduction’, in Inayatullah, Naeem (ed.), Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar.

24 Brigg, Morgan and Bleiker, Roland, ‘Autoethnographic International Relations: Exploring the Self as a Source of Knowledge’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2010), pp. 779–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dauphinee, Elizabeth, ‘The Ethics of Autoethnography’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2010), pp. 799–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Löwenheim, Oded, ‘The I in IR: An Autoethnographic Account’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2010), pp. 1023–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Doty, Roxanne Lynn, ‘Autoethnography – Making Human Connections’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2010), pp. 1047–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neumann, Iver B., ‘Autobiography, Ontology, Autoethnography’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2010), pp. 1051–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Inayatullah (ed.), Autobiographical.

26 Inayatullah, ‘Falling’, pp. 5–6.

27 Dauphinee, ‘The Ethics of Autoethnography’.

28 Rorty, Richard, Consequences of Pragmatism. Essays 1972–1980 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), p. xliGoogle Scholar.

29 Woolgar, Steve, Science: The Very Idea (2nd edn, London: Routledge, 1993 [orig. pub. 1988]), p. 83Google Scholar.

30 Woolgar, Steve, ‘Reflexivity is the Ethnographer of the Text’, in Woolgar, Steve (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1988), p. 28Google Scholar.

31 Stephen Chan, ‘Accidental Scholarship and the Myth of Objectivity’; Jenny Edkins, ‘Objects Among Objects’; Narendran Kumarakulasingam, ‘Stammers Between Silence and Speech’ and Khadija El Alaoui, ‘Scenes of Obscenity: The Meaning of America under Epistemic and Military Violence’, in Inayatullah (ed.), Autobiographical.

32 Rainer Hülsse, ‘I, the Double Soldier: An Autobiographic Case-Study on the Pitfalls of Dual Citizenship’ and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, ‘Three Stories: A Way of Being in the World’, in Inayatullah, Ibid.

33 Ellis and Bochner, Ibid., p. 740. See also Reed-Danahay, Deborah, ‘Introduction’, in Reed-Danahay, (ed.), Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social (Oxford: Berg, 1997)Google Scholar.

34 Dauphinee, ‘The Ethics of Autoethnography’, pp. 803–4.

35 Bochner, Arthur, ‘Criteria Against Ourselves’, Qualitative Inquiry, 6:2 (2000), pp. 266–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Freeman, Mark, ‘Identity and Difference’, Narrative Inquiry, 13 (2003), pp. 331–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 de Freitas, Elizabeth and Paton, Jillian, ‘(De)facing the Self: Poststructural Disruptions of the Autoethnographic Text’, Qualitative Inquiry, 15:3 (2009), pp. 483–98, 484CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvonna, ‘The Seventh Moment: Out of the Past’, in Denzin, and Lincoln, (eds), Handbook (2nd edn), pp. 1047–65, 1060Google Scholar.

39 de Freitas and Paton, p. 484.

40 Ibid., p. 491.

41 Ibid., p. 490.

42 Ibid., p. 493.

43 Barthes, Roland, The Grain of the Voice: Interviews 1962–1980 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 305Google Scholar.

44 Barthes, Roland, Roland Barthes par Roland Barthes (Paris: Seuil, 1975), p. 9Google Scholar.

45 Jacques Derrida, quoted in Caputo, J. D. and Scanlon, M. J., Augustine and Postmodernism: Confessions and Circumfession (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), p. 25Google Scholar.

46 Davies, Bronwyn, Browne, Jenny, Gannon, Susanne, Honan, Eileen, et al., ‘The Ambivalent Practices of Reflexivity’, Qualitative Inquiry, 10:3 (2004), pp. 360–89, 366CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Barthes, Roland, ‘La mort de l'auteur’, in Barthes, , Le bruissement de la langue: Essais critiques IV (Paris: Seuil, 1984), pp. 63–9, 66Google Scholar; author's translation.

48 Doty, ‘Autoethnography’, p. 1050.

49 Inayatullah, ‘Falling’, p. 9.

50 Brady, Ivan, Anthropological Poetics (Savage: Rowman and Littlefield, 1991)Google Scholar.

51 Bochner, ‘Criteria’, p. 269.

52 de Man, Paul, ‘Autobiography as De-facement’, MLN, 94:5 (1979), pp. 919–30, 920CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Ibid., p. 921.

54 Macbeth, Douglas, ‘On “Reflexivity” in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third’, Qualitative Inquiry, 7:1 (2001), pp. 35–68, 39, 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Barone, Tom and Blumenfeld-Jones, Donald, ‘Interrupting the Sign: The Aesthetics of Research Texts’, in Jipson, J. A. and Paley, N. (eds), Daredevil Research: Re-creating Analytic Practice (New York: Peter Lang, 1977), pp. 83–107Google Scholar.

56 Ricoeur, Paul, Le conflit des interprétations: Essais d'herméneutique (Paris: Seuil, 1969), p. 318; author's translationGoogle Scholar.

57 Lather, Patti, ‘Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism’, The Sociological Quarterly, 34:4 (1993), pp. 673–93, 685CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Quoted in Kearney, R., Dialogues with Contemporary Continental Thinkers: The Phenomenological heritage: Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas, Herbert Marcuse, Stanislas Breton, Jacques Derrida (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 125Google Scholar, emphasis added.

59 Durkheim, Emile, Les règles de la méthode sociologique (Paris: Flammarion, 1999 [orig. pub. 1895])Google Scholar.

60 Bourdieu, Pierre, Chamboredon, Jean-Claude and Passeron, Jean-Claude, Le métier de sociologue. Préalables épistémologiques (Paris: Mouton, 1983 [orig. pub. 1968])Google Scholar.

61 Ibid., p. 27, emphasis added; author's translation.

62 Ibid., p. 53, fn. 2.

63 Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage, 1984 [orig. pub. 1966])Google Scholar.

64 Denzin, Norman, Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997), pp. 221–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted in Davies et al., p. 367.

65 Butler, Judith, The Psychic Life of Power (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), p. 4Google Scholar, quoted in Davies et al., p. 363.

66 Neumann, ‘Autobiography’, p. 1055.

67 Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Penguin, 1991 [orig. pub. 1966])Google Scholar.

68 Lukács, Georg, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics (London: The Merlin Press, 1971 [orig. pub. 1922])Google Scholar.

69 Harding, Sandra, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Harding (ed.) The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader; Haraway, Donna, ‘Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14:2 (1988), pp. 583–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collins, Patricia Hill, ‘Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought’, Social Problems, 33:6 (1986), S14–S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Hall, Stuart, ‘Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representation’, Framework, 36 (1989), pp. 68– 82Google Scholar.

71 Hopf, Ted, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, 23:1 (1998), pp. 171–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guzzini, , ‘A Reconstruction’ and ‘The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33:3 (2005), pp. 495–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Harding, ‘Rethinking’, p. 133.

73 Smith, ‘Women's Perspective’, p. 31.

74 Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990 [orig. pub. 1980]), p. 26Google Scholar.

75 Ibid., pp. 25–6, emphasis added.

76 Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loïc, Réponses. Pour une anthropologie reflexive (Paris: Libre Examen/Seuil, 1992), p. 101Google Scholar.

77 Bourdieu, Pierre, Esquisse d'une théorie de la pratique (Paris: Seuil, 2000 [orig. pub. 1972]), p. 263Google Scholar.

78 Bourdieu, , Raisons pratiques: Sur la théorie de l'action (Paris: Seuil, 1994), p. 81Google Scholar. I use ‘[hi]story’ as a translation of the French term ‘histoire’, which can mean either ‘history’ or ‘story’, both of which have relevant connotations in Bourdieu's statement.

79 Ibid., p. 88.

80 Bourdieu, Pierre, Sketch for a Self-Analysis (Cambridge: Polity, 2007 [orig. pub. 2004]), p. 4Google Scholar.

81 Bourdieu, Pierre, Les règles de l'art. Genèse et structure du champ littéraire (Paris: Seuil, 1998 [orig. pub. 1992])Google Scholar.

82 Bourdieu, Pierre, L'ontologie politique de Martin Heidegger (Paris: Minuit, 1988)Google Scholar.

83 The opening sentence of the book, which is prefaced ‘This is not an autobiography’, is especially illustrative of Bourdieu's efforts to methodically apply his theoretical framework to himself: ‘To understand is first to understand the field with which and against which one has been formed. That is why, at the risk of surprising a reader who perhaps expects to see me begin at the beginning, that is to say, with the evocation of my earliest years and the social world of my childhood, I must, as a point of method, first examine the state of the [French academic] field at the moment I entered it, in the 1950s …’.83 Bourdieu, Sketch, p. 4.

84 Bourdieu, Raisons pratiques, p. 82.

85 Bourdieu, Pierre, Méditations pascaliennes (Paris: Seuil, 2003 [orig. pub. 1997]), pp. 24–5Google Scholar.

86 Löwenheim, ‘The I’, p. 1025.

87 Halliday et al., p. 372.

88 Dauphinee, ‘The Ethics of Autoethnography’, p. 806.

89 Doty, ‘Autoethnography’, p. 1050.

90 Sandra Harding, ‘Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic, and Scientific Debate’, p. 8 and Smith, ‘Women's Perspective’, in Harding (ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, p. 29.

91 Bourdieu, Méditations pascaliennes, pp. 24–5.

92 Interestingly, Feminist Standpoint Theory, which stresses the idea that a ‘standpoint’ is different from a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘perspective’ and hence only starts from shared experience in order to construct it into a cognitive standpoint, also uses ‘autobiographies’ and ‘ethnographies of women’ as experience-illuminating data. See Hilary Rose, ‘Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences’, p. 75; Hill Collins, ‘Learning from the Outsider Within’, pp. 103–26; and Harding, ‘Introduction’, p. 6; in Harding (ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader.

93 Bourdieu, Pierre, Leçon sur la leçon (Paris: Minuit, 1982), p. 10Google Scholar.

94 Derrida, Jacques, ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’, in Writing and Difference (London: Routledge, 1978), p. 283Google Scholar.

95 Ibid., p. 284.

96 García Selgas, Fernando J., ‘Feminist Epistemologies for Critical Social Theory: From Standpoint Theory to Situated Knowledge’, in Harding, (ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, pp. 293–308, 294–5Google Scholar.