Ronald Pelias revolutionizes the style of academic writing by illustrating an innovative version. He prompts academics to understand and take responsibility for the personal, engaged dimension of academic writing. Academic discourse can integrate, rather than exclude, readers’ perspectives. Autoethnography brings the “ivory tower” of the academy closer to everyday life. Pelias’s piece functions as an incentive for our own critical and (self-)revelatory engagement in our interactions with people, cultural meanings, and our own bodies. If we face up to the challenge, society becomes a place for transformation, rather than conformation—which our writing sufficiently prepares to hear our voices.
BanksS. P.BanksA. (2000). Reading “the critical life”: Autoethnography as pedagogy. Communication Education, 49, 233-238.
2.
DenzinN. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
GareisE. (2000). Rhetoric and intercultural friendship formation. In GonzálezA.TannoD. V. (Eds.), Rhetoric in intercultural contexts (pp. 91-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
GoodallH. L.Jr. (1999). Casing the academy for community. Communication Theory, 9, 465-494.
5.
NeumannM. (1996). Collecting ourselves at the end of the century. In EllisC.BochnerA. (Eds.), Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing (pp. 172-198). London, England: AltaMira Press.
6.
PeliasR. (2000). The critical life. Communication Education, 49, 220-228.
7.
RaganS. L. (2000). “The critical life”: An exercise in applying inapplicable critical standards. Communication Education, 49, 229-232.
8.
RicoeurP. (1999). The conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Echinox.
9.
ShomeR. (1996). Race and popular cinema: The rhetorical strategies of whiteness in City of Joy. Communication Quarterly, 44, 502-518.
