This article is a self-reflexive account of one postcolonial feminist media scholar’s research among young middle-class women in urban India who read Western romance fiction. Urging feminist scholars to pay attention to the politics of representation of audiences in media studies, the article explores power imbalances in the field that arise due to social constructions of gender, ethnic, class, and sexual identities. The article reflects on failures, successes, and dilemmas experienced during the research process to show that feminist media ethnographies are embedded within discourses of power. By examining the multiple positionalities occupied by the researcher in relation to people encountered in the field, this account challenges binary distinctions between categories such as Self/Other, native/Westerner, and insider/outsider. In concluding, the article underscores the implications of research by non-Western feminist scholars in their own cultures for postcolonial feminist ethnography, feminist media ethnographies, and for media reception research on globalization in the cultural studies tradition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abu-Lughod, L. (1988). Fieldwork of a dutiful daughter. In S. Altorki & C. Fawzi El-Solh (Eds.), Arab women in the field: Studying your own society (pp. 139-162). New York: Syracuse University Press.
2.
Abu-Lughod, L. (1990a). Can there be a feminist ethnography?Women and Performance: Journal of Feminist Theory, 5(1), 7-27.
3.
Abu-Lughod, L. (1990b). The romance of resistance: Tracing transformations of power through Bedouin women. American Ethnologist, 17(1), 41-55.
4.
Ahmad, A. (1992). In theory: Classes, nations, literatures. London: New York: Verso.
5.
Altorki, S. (1988). At home in the field. In S. Altorki & C. Fawzi El-Solh (Eds.), Arab women in the field: Studying your own society (pp. 25-48). New York: Syracuse University Press.
6.
Altorki, S., & Fawzi El-Solh, C. (1988). Arab women in the field: Studying your own society. New York: Syracuse University Press.
7.
Ang, I. (1989). Beyond self-reflexivity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 27-29.
8.
Ang, I. (1996). Living room wars: Rethinking media audiences for a postmodern world. New York: Routledge.
9.
Basu, A. (1996, Summer). Caste and class: The rise of Hindu nationalism in India. Harvard International Review, pp. 28-31.
10.
Behar, R. (1993). Translated woman: Crossing the border with Esparanza’s story. Boston: Beacon Press.
11.
Beteille, A. (1965). Caste, class, and power: Changing patterns of stratification in a Tanjore village. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Bolak, H. (1996). Studying one’s own in the Middle East: Negotiating gender and self-other dynamics in the field. Qualitative Sociology, 19(1), 107-130.
13.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Cole, S., & Philips, L. (1996). The work and politics of feminist ethnography. In S. Cole & L. Philips (Eds.), Ethnographic feminisms: Essays in anthropology (pp. 1-19). Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press.
15.
Couillard, M. (1996). From women’s point of view: Practising feminist anthropology in a world of differences. In S. Cole & L. Philips (Eds.), Ethnographic feminisms: Essays in anthropology (pp. 1-19). Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press.
16.
El-Solh, C. (1988). Gender, class, and origin. In S. Altorki & C. Fawzi El-Solh (Eds.), Arab women in the field: Studying your own society (pp. 91-114). New York: Syracuse University Press.
17.
England, K. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80-89.
18.
Escobar, A. (1993). The limits of reflexivity: Politics in anthropology’s post-writing culture era. Journal of Anthropological Research, 49(4), 377-391.
19.
Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Ganguly, K. (1992). Accounting for others: Feminism and representation. In L. Rakow (Ed.), Women making meaning: New feminist directions in communication (pp. 60-79). New York: Routledge.
22.
Gilbert, M. (1994). The politics of location: Doing feminist research at “home.”Professional Geographer, 46(1), 90-96.
23.
Gluck, S. B., & D. Patai. (1991). Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history. New York: Routledge.
24.
Gordon, D. (1988). Writing culture, writing feminism: The poetics and politics of experimental ethnography. Inscriptions, 3/4, 1-7.
25.
Grewal, I., & Kaplan, C. (1994). Introduction: Transnational feminist practices. In I. Grewal & C. Kaplan (Eds.), Scattered hegemonies: Postmodernity and transnational feminist practices (pp. 3-33). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 7-23.
27.
Hale, S. (1991). Feminist method, process, and self-criticism: Interviewing Sudanese women. In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words (pp. 121-136). New York: Routledge.
28.
Hall, S. (1991). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treicher (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 277-294). New York: Routledge.
29.
Hancock, M. (1995). Hindu culture for an Indian nation: Gender, politics, and elite identity in urban south India. American Ethnologist, 22(4), 907-926.
30.
Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
31.
John, M. (1988). Postcolonial feminists in the Western intellectual field: Anthropologists and native informants?Inscriptions, 5, 49-73.
32.
Joshi, S. (Ed.). (1991). Rethinking English: Essays in literature, language, history. New Delhi, India: Trianka.
33.
Juluri, V. (1998). Globalizing audience studies: The audience and its landscape and living room wars. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 85-90.
34.
Kavoori, A. (1998). Getting past the latest “post”: Assessing the term “post-colonial.”Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 195-202.
35.
Klein, R. (1983). How to do what we want to do: Thoughts about feminist methodology. In G. Bowles & R. Klein (Ed.), Theories of women’s studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
36.
Kobayashi, A. (1994). Coloring the field: Gender, “race,” and the politics of fieldwork. Professional Geographer, 46(1), 73-80.
37.
Kumar, N. (Ed). (1994). Introduction. In N. Kumar (Ed.), Women as subjects: South Asian histories. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
38.
Lal, J. (1996). Situating locations: The politics of self, identity, and “other” in living and writing the text. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 185-214). Boulder, CO: Westview.
39.
Lengel, L. (1998). Researching the “other,” transforming ourselves: Methodological considerations of feminist ethnography. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 22(3), 229-250.
40.
Liddle, J., & Joshi, R. (1986). Daughters of independence: Gender, caste, and class in India. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
41.
Lieten, G. K. (1996). Hindu communalism: Between caste and class. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 26(2), 236-252.
42.
MacIntyre, M. (1993). Fictive kinship or mistaken identity? In D. Bell, P. Caplan, & W. Jahan (Eds.), Gendered fields: Women, men, and ethnography (pp. 44-62). New York: Routledge.
43.
Mani, L. (1991). Cultural theory and colonial texts: Reading eyewitness accounts of widow burning. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler, (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 392-408). New York: Routledge.
44.
Mankekar, P. (1993). Reconstituting “Indian womanhood”: An ethnography of television viewers in a North Indian city (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(12), 4498.
45.
Mazumdar, S. (1994). Moving away from a secular vision? Women, nation, and the cultural construction of Hindu India. In V. Moghadam (Ed.), Identity politics and women: Cultural reassertions and feminisms in international perspective (pp. 243-272). Boulder, CO: Westview.
46.
McRobbie, A. (1990). Feminism and youth culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
47.
Moghadam, V. (Ed.). (1994). Identity politics and women: Cultural reassertions and feminisms in international perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview.
48.
Mohanty, C. (1991). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In A. Russo & L. Torres (Eds.), Third World women and the politics of feminism (pp. 51-80). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
49.
Murphy, P. (1999). Doing audience ethnography: A narrative account of establishing ethnographic identity and locating interpretive communities in fieldwork. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 479-504.
50.
Nandy, A. (1987). Traditions, tyranny, and utopias. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
51.
Naples, N. (1996). A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The outsider phenomenon in rural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology, 19(1), 83-106.
52.
Narayan, K. (1993). How native is a “native” anthropologist?American Anthropologist, 95, 671-686.
53.
Narayan, U. (1997). Dislocating cultures: Identities, traditions, and third world feminism. New York: Routledge.
54.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
55.
Ong, A. (1988). Colonialism and modernity: Feminist re-presentation of women in non-Western societies. Inscriptions, 3/4, 79-93.
56.
Patai, D. (1991). U.S. academics and Third World women: Is ethical research possible? In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words (pp. 137-153). New York: Routledge.
57.
Philips, L. (1996). Difference, indifference, and making a difference: Reflexivity in the time of cholera. In S. Cole & L. Philips (Eds.), Ethnographic feminisms: Essays in anthropology (pp. 1-19). Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press.
58.
Prakash, G. (1990). Writing post-Orientalist histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian historiography. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 32(2), 383-408.
59.
Press, A., & Cole, E. (1999). Speaking of abortion: Television and authority in women’s lives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy and popular literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
61.
Radway, J. (1986). Identifying ideological seams: Mass culture, analytic method and political Practice. Communication, 9(1), 93-124.
62.
Radway, J. (1989). Ethnography among elites: Comparing discourses of power. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 4-11.
63.
Raheja, G., & Gold, A. (1994). Listen to the heron’s words: Reimagining gender and kinship in North India. Berkeley: University of California Press.
64.
Ram, K. (1992a). Modernist anthropology and the construction of Indian identity. Meanjin, 51(3), 589-614.
65.
Ram, K. (1992b). Mukkuvar women: Gender, hegemony, and capitalist transformation in a South Indian fishing community. New Delhi, India: Kali for Women.
66.
Reinharz, S. (1983). Experiential analysis: Acontribution to feminist research. In G. Bowles & R. Klein (Ed.), Theories of women’s studies (pp. 168-172). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
67.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
68.
Said, E. (1989). Representing the colonized: Anthropology’s interlocutors. Critical Inquiry, 15, 205-225.
69.
Salazar, C. (1991). A Third World woman’s text: Between the politics of criticism and cultural politics. In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 93-106). New York: Routledge.
70.
Sanday, P. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York: New York University Press.
71.
Seiter, E. (1990). Making distinctions in audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies, 4(1), 61-71.
72.
Seymour, S. (1995). Family structure, marriage, caste, and class: Exploring the linkages in an Indian town. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 2(1), 67-85.
73.
Shome, R. (1998). Caught in the term “post colonial”: Why the “post-colonial” still matters. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 203-212.
74.
Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
75.
Sridhar, K. (1977). The development of English as an elite language in the multilingual context of India. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
76.
Stacey, J. (1991). Can there be a feminist ethnography? In S. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words (pp. 111-119). New York: Routledge.
77.
Stoeltje, B., Fox, C., & Obrys, S. (1999). The self in “fieldwork”: A methodological concern. Journal of American Folklore, 112(44), 158-182.
78.
Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(1), 69-94.
79.
Varma, P. (1998). The great Indian middle-class. New Delhi, India: Viking Penguin India.
80.
Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
81.
Weis, L. (1990). Working class without work. New York: Routledge.
82.
Wolf, D. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1-55). Boulder, CO: Westview.
83.
Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
