This article calls attention to the productive intersection of various postcriticisms of knowledge production and the critique of ethnography as a writing technology for producing scientific knowledge about others. In particular, poststructural and deconstructive criticism, cultural studies, feminist science studies, postcolonial theory, and queer theory are seen to have focused disruptive and useful attention on the ethnographic I/eye, both inside and outside the professional academic texts of human science. A radical or full reflexivity is seen to be particularly useful in this attention to the one who sees, knows, and writes, but this reflexivity has been criticized by feminist technoscience critic Donna Haraway for being in fact too timid. A consideration of Haraway's preferred strategy based on the metaphor of diffraction, which seeks to effect difference patterns in the local worlds where ethnography is done, closes the article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ang, I. ( 1996). Living room wars: Rethinking media audiencesfor a postmodern worldNew York: Routledge.
2.
Barad, K. (2000). Reconceiving scientific literacy as agential literacy: Or, learning how to intra-act responsibly within the world In R. Reid & S. Traweek (Eds.), Doing science +culture: How cultural and interdisciplinary studies are changing the way we look at science and medicine (pp. 221-258). New York: Routledge .
3.
Chambers, I. (1994). Migrancy, culture, identityNew York: Routledge.
4.
Chen, N.N., & Trinh, T.M. (1994). Speaking nearby In L. Taylor (Ed.), Visualizing theory: Selected essays from V A. R. 1990-1994 (pp. 434-451). New York: Routledge.
5.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography.Berkeley : University of California Press.
7.
Clough, P.T. (1998). The end(s) of ethnography: From realism to social criticismNew York: Peter Lang .
8.
Clough, P.T. (2000). Autoaffection: Unconscious thought in the age ofteletechnologyMinneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
9.
de Lauretis, T. (1984). Alice doesn't: Feminism, semiotics, cinemaBloomington: University of Indiana Press.
10.
Denzin, N.K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st centuryThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Derrida, J. (1976). Ofgrammatology (G. C. Spivak, TransBaltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
12.
Duara, P. (1995). Rescuing history from the nation: Questioning narratives of modern ChinaChicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Foucault, M. (1977). Nietzsche, genealogy, history In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice (pp. 139-164). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
14.
Game, A. (1991). Undoing the soczal: Towards a deconstructive sociologyToronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
15.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodologyEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
Gordon, A. (1990). Feminism, writing, and ghostsSoczal Problems, 37, 485-500.
17.
Gordon, A. (1997). Ghostly matters: Haunting and the sociological imaginationMinneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1995). On some failures of nerve in constructivist and feminist analyses of technologyScience, Technology, & Human Values, 20, 286-310.
19.
Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183-201). New York: Routledge.
20.
Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_ Mzllenium. Femaleman(c)_Meets_Oncomouse(tm): Feminism and technoscienceNew York: Routledge.
21.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in fiminismIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thmkmg from women's livesIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
23.
Harding, S. (1993). The "racial" economy of science: Toward a democratic futureBloomington: Indiana University Press.
24.
Heath, D. (1997). Bodies, antibodies, and modest interventions In G. L. Downey & J. Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs and citadels: Anthropological interventions in emerging sciences and technologies (pp. xx-xx). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
25.
hooks, b. (1990). YearningBoston: Southend Press.
26.
Kaplan, C. (1996). Questions of travel: Postmodern discourses of displacementDurham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
Krieger, S. (1991). Social science and the self Personal essays on an art formNew Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through societyCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Latour, B. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 155-176). London: Sage.
30.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality ofscience studiesCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction ofscientific factsBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Mills, C.W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motivesAmerican Sociological Review, 6, 904-913.
33.
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinemaScreen, 16, 6-18.
34.
Pollner, M. (1987). Mundane reason: Reality in everyday andsociological discourseCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Pollner, M. (1991). Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflexivityAmerican Sociological Review , 56, 370-380.
36.
Richardson, L. (1994). Nine poems: Marriage and the familyJournal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 3-14.
37.
Schneider, J.W. (1993). Members only: Reading the constructionist text In J. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.), Reconsidering social constructionism: Debates in soczal problems theory (pp. 103-116). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
38.
Schneider, J.W., & Wang, L. (2000). Giving care, writing self A "new" ethnographyNew York: Peter Lang.
39.
Smith, D.E. (1978). K is mentally ill: The anatomy of a factual accountSociology, 12,23-53.
40.
Sofoulis, Z. (1988). Through the lumen: Frankenstein and the optics ofre-origination. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
41.
Spivak, G.C. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues (S. Harasym, Ed.). New York : Routledge.
42.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimesCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Traweek, S. (2000). Faultlines In R. Reid & S. Traweek (Eds.), Doing science + culture: How cultural and interdisciplinary studies are changing the way we look at science and medicine (pp. 21-48). New York: Routledge.
USA Weekend (1999, September 5). Des Moines Sunday Register, p. 13.
46.
Wang, L., & Schneider, J.W. (1998). Loudou: Yi xiang dui laonian ren jiating zhaogu he jiating guanxi de shehuixue yanjiu [Funnel: A sociological study of family caregiving for the elderly and of family relationships]Tianjin, China: Tianjin People's Press.
47.
Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernzsm and ethnographic responsibilityStanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
Woolgar, S. (1988a). Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledgeLondon: Sage.
49.
Woolgar, S. (1988b). Science: The very ideaLondon : Tavistock.
50.
Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanationsSocial Problems , 32, 214-227.
